Full Committee Markup of Nine Bills
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Energy and Commerce U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Everyone in this room shares the important goal of protecting our nation's kids as they navigate the online world. And over the past several months, I have engaged in aggressive bipartisan talks with Chairman Guthrie and his staff to address the risk children and teens face as they live increasingly digital-centered lives. And I'm disappointed that we were not able to come to a bipartisan agreement on the bills before us today. Unfortunately, committee Republicans have chosen to move forward with a set of partisan bills that simply do not meet the mark for kids' safety, and if they become law, would leave kids and their parents worse off than they are today, in my opinion.
And that's right. I really believe that these bills would leave our kids less safe online than they are today. I believe that Republicans are handing Big Tech a giant gift by walking away from the stronger preemption standards that were previously included in these bills. The new preemption standards are inadequate to allow states to pass stronger laws to do more to protect kids. And this is really important, especially as we consider how quickly technology can evolve with artificial intelligence.
Even worse, the preemption provisions could harm existing efforts to protect kids by holding companies like Meta and Roadblocks accountable in the courts. Just last month, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified in a landmark trial about social media addiction and harm, and we need to preserve these avenues for justice for kids and parents who have suffered unspeakable harm, including many of the parents in the room with us today. The Republican bills could prevent these avenues from even being open, leaving Meta and other big tech companies unaccountable for the harms that they inflict on our kids. Republicans have also included a giant loophole for big tech with their knowledge standard. The standard allows tech companies and companies that collect kids' data to continue to claim that they lacked actual knowledge or willfully disregarded knowledge that kids are using their platforms.
Republicans are letting big tech off the hook by letting them say they don't know if they have kids on their platforms, and nobody really believes that. The Republicans want to let big tech get away with ridiculous claims. With an impossible-to-meet knowledge standard, enforcement becomes extremely difficult. So these bills also threaten kids in unsupportive or even abusive households, where there can be real world harms from allowing parents complete access and control over their teens' online existence. These Republican bills let Big Tech off the hook.
They stop progress to protect kids, and they make vulnerable kids less safe. And that's why I can't support them today. Finally, I am disappointed that the slate of bills we are considering today does not include my Don't Sell Kids Data Act, a straightforward bill that would have banned data brokers from profiting off of kids' data. And while I cannot support these bills today, I hope we can continue to work, as the chairman has suggested, to improve all of the bills so that they actually protect kids. And I'm committed to this issue as I've always been, but we have to get it right.
Our kids depend on it. We'll also be marking up 5 bipartisan energy cybersecurity bills on the agenda today. We're facing unprecedented challenges to the reliability of our power grid. The bills we're marking up help us address some of the cybersecurity concerns that we're currently facing. And while there's still more work to be done, I am encouraged to see bipartisan interest in moving these policies forward.
Three of the bills amend or reauthorize important programs that were established in the bipartisan infrastructure law. We're also marking up legislation that ensures the Department of Energy has the authority it needs to enhance energy security. Department of Energy and Secretary Wright have a lot to prove to us when it comes to protecting our energy security. The Trump administration has spent its efforts canceling much-needed investments in our power grid, even as our need for more reliable energy only grows. And this cannot continue.
One of the programs we're reauthorizing today had millions in funding for rural electric cooperatives and municipal utilities that were held up for countless months due to senseless delays at Trump's Department of Energy. If we want the programs we're reauthorizing today to succeed, we have to ensure that this doesn't happen again. And so, with that, mister chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 2
The gentleman yields back, and the chair will remind members that pursuant to the committee rules, all members' opening statements will be made part of the record. Are there further opening statements? Gentleman from Ohio is recognized for three minutes for an opening statement.
Speaker 4
Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I'm pleased that today's markup has the five bipartisan energy security bills to address cyber and physical threats to our nation's energy infrastructure. Throughout the 119th Congress, the energy subcommittee has spent considerable time examining the evolving threat landscape facing our energy system. American families and businesses rely on secure, reliable, and affordable energy supplies in their everyday lives. The legislation before us today will protect our nation's critical infrastructure by ensuring government and private sector partners are equipped with the resources and authorities needed to identify, assess, and address attacks on our energy infrastructure.
The interconnected nature of our energy system requires constant intelligence sharing, clear visibility into threat landscapes, and sufficient resources to fill gaps in security protections, particularly for rural and small utility service territories. Our bipartisan legislation seeks to do just that. HR 7272, the Pipeline Cybersecurity Preparedness Act, and HR 7258, the Energy Emergency Leadership Act, rightly enhance the Department of Energy's existing role in physical and cyber threat protection as a sector risk management agency for the energy industry. In addition, HR 7305, the Energy Threat Analysis Center Act, and HR 7266, the Rural and Municipal Utility Cybersecurity Act, aid information sharing efforts for threat detection and equip small and rural operators with the necessary resources to protect their systems. HR 72 57, the Secure Grid Act, which I sponsor with the general lady from California's 7th Congressional District, will modernize state energy security plans to take a holistic view of potential threats facing states.
Altogether, the bipartisan legislation for us builds upon the important work being done across the country, and we'll ensure a more secure and resilient system as we enter an era of skyrocketing energy demands. Mister chairman, I also wanna thank our subcommittee staff for all their hard work on getting these bills to us today. I urge my colleagues to support these important bills, and, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 2
Jimin yields back, and I'll just go on order. So the gentlelady from New York is recognized for an opening statement for three minutes.
Speaker 5
Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Guthrie, and Ranking Member Palone. I'll get right to it. This committee sounds like a broken record. Month after month and year after year, Republicans have used this committee as a means to give more handouts to tech oligarchs under the guise of keeping kids safe online. Today is no different as we prepare to discuss the same half-baked bills.
In our subcommittee markup in December, we agreed that we all wanted to see changes to these bills. Apparently, three months were not enough time to reach any sort of consensus, let alone common sense. Republicans have gone as far as to create a partisan Frankenstein package made of their bad ideas, falsely labeled as kids' Internet safety. Some of the bills before this committee today are ripe with contradictions, vague enforcement mechanisms, and directly undermine the state authority. As I've said many times in this room, without a comprehensive federal standard, existing state laws are the only legislation keeping kids safe online right now.
These bills will make way for bad actors to data mine or, in other words, sell, license, rent, trade, transfer, release, disclose, or provide access to personal data. Let me spell it out for you. When a data miner gets the personal information of a child or a teen, they profit from them for life. The best solution to protect kids online is a federal data privacy standard that we can build off and include additional protections for children and teens. Until my colleagues on the other side of the aisle decide to take this seriously and stop lining the pockets of big tech and data miners, no one will actually be safe online.
Let's go back to the drawing board, work in a bipartisan manner to create clear preemption definitions, and create a package that actually keeps children safe. With that, I yield back the balance of my.
Speaker 2
Thank you. The gentlelady yells back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida for 3 minutes for his opening statement.
Speaker 6
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I wanna thank the chairman for working with me and stakeholders on all these child protection bills since the subcommittee markup. The Kids Act is the most comprehensive kids' online safety package this committee has ever advanced. This is the culmination of years of hearings, evidence gathering, heartfelt testimony, and the social media questioning this committee led under several chairs in the past. We heard stories of kids engaging in drug deals and dying of overdoses with the help of apps that enable disappearing messages.
The Kids Act does that, and I wanna thank the parents as well for their input. There's no question. We heard stories of kids being groomed by strangers through gaming apps and consoles. The Kids Act addresses that, ladies and gentlemen. We heard stories of chatbots encouraging and facilitating suicides in kids.
The Kids Act, sponsored by the chairman, addresses that. We've come a long way, ladies and gentlemen. We work together in a bipartisan fashion. Specifically, I wanna talk about my bill, the Kids Online Safety Act, which is now entitled to the Kids Act. This bill creates significant safeguards for minors that limit known threats.
This includes limitations on the ability of strangers to engage with minors online. It limits design features that cause compulsive use and addiction to social media platforms. It restricts geolocation of minors that are being used by groomers to meet and abuse their victims, as well as facilitate narcotic drug sales. Most importantly, COSA turns off the algorithms by default for our kids. So, very important.
Again, the input from the parents really made a difference. We all see it on our own devices. Every one of us is constantly fed recommended videos based on an individual history on the platform or across platforms. Now imagine you are a teen child that enjoys UFC videos or a teen, so a boy or a girl or a teen girl or boy who watches a video on healthy eating. Of course, there's nothing wrong with this.
But we've all heard the stories, in a matter of days. Kids can be sucked into an algorithm that twists these innocent views into promoting violence or drug use or self harm or eating disorders. Kosa puts an end to this spiral. We have a great package here, ladies and gentlemen, that is gonna go a long way to protecting kids and reducing the online harms we have all seen. So, again, I thank the chairman for creating this package of bills, which, combined, will mitigate many of the harms we have all seen in our districts.
I'm proud of the work we've done, and it's long past time to move these bills to the floor. Appreciate it. Thank you so much.
Speaker 2
Thank you. The gentleman yells back. The chair recognizes a gentlelady from Illinois, Miss Shukowski, for three minutes for opening statement.
Speaker 8
Wanna thank the parents and families that are here today. And the message that I have heard is that this legislation is not what we have been looking for. We want something better, stronger, something that is really relevant to the children who have been lost. We can do better. And so I think many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle believe that we can and will do better.
We need to work with families, hear their voices, hear what happened, and we need to stop it. And we don't have to slim down. We can get something that is gonna be strong enough to make sure that these people who are here today, thinking about their children, children that did not make it, and asking us to do better, to be stronger, to be smarter. I think we can do this. I know that we can do this.
We've had conversations about it, and I am looking forward to the real bill that needs to make sure that it accounts for the people who have had the worst thing in life happen to them, to lose their precious children. We can do better, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentle lady yields back. The chair any member of the Republican side seeking recognized for an opening statement. The chair would like to recognize the gentlelady from Florida and Miss Castro for three minutes for opening statement.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For years, the Energy and Commerce Committee has examined the profound harms of the social media platforms inflict on children and the maligned design choices that big tech companies use to maximize engagement and profit at kids' expense. Through hearings, investigations, whistleblower testimony, and the voices of families across this country, this committee has learned that these platforms are engineered to capture children's attention, harvest their data, and keep them online with disregard to the consequences for their mental health and safety. That is why it is so troubling that the Republican kids' online safety and privacy bills before us today would actually weaken protections for children. These bills would prevent states from acting as technology evolves, blocking them from responding to new and emerging threats, and they would let social media companies off the hook by allowing them to claim they don't know that children are on their platforms, even though these companies design their products to attract young users and profit from their presence.
Instead of raising standards for children's safety, these bills would lower them. Instead of empowering states to protect kids, they would tie the state's hands. And instead of holding big tech accountable, they would shield companies and corporations from responsibility. We know this. In 2021, Frances Haugen came before Congress, and she testified that Meta built a business model that prioritizes profit over the safety of its users.
Her testimony echoed the tactics of the tobacco industry decades ago. Deny the harm, obscure the evidence, and protect the business model at all costs. What we've learned since then, surgeon general reports, John Haight's best-selling book. We know this. So why are Republicans catering to the big tech companies instead of truly getting back to the bipartisan strong versions of kids' online safety and privacy bills that we hammered out together in the last Congress?
I think you only have to look at what this Congress has done. The republic, the big tech companies had a front row seat at the inauguration. They were able to pass an AI moratorium. This is not the time to turn your back on kids, and people across America are aware of it. We're not gonna stand for weaker bills that put our kids' safety and privacy at risk.
And I wanna thank the parents who are here. You have been our North Star in working for, as Miss Chicago C said, so much better. You deserve so much better, and we're gonna fight for you every step of the way. I yield back my time.
Speaker 2
Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. The chair will recognize the gentlelady from Tennessee, Miss Harshberger, for three minutes for an opening statement.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to express my gratitude to Chair Guthrie for his leadership. I've heard from countless parents who've been fighting to protect their children and teens from harm online. The Kids Act will save lives. You know, I'm a mother, but not only am I a mother, I'm a grandmother with children who are the age who have access to these online evils.
So what this committee is doing today, we're fighting for what's right. We need to pass this bill to empower parents and protect American families. I wanna highlight Title One of the Kids Act. This provision includes language from the Screen Act, which my colleague and very good friend Mary Miller introduced earlier this Congress and which I'm proud to help lead. Point blank, kids should not be looking at pornography.
This is just common sense, people. If you wanna operate an adult website, you need to make sure minors are not using it. I also want to add that it is constitutional too. There are some groups out there who suggest it's unconstitutional. Personally, I don't believe this is their real concern.
We've been hearing from a lot of folks who profit off doing harm to kids or have questionable ideological priorities. But for those who are worried, you should not be. Last summer, the Supreme Court ruled on this very issue. In Free Speech Coalition versus Paxton, the Supreme Court ruled six to three in favor of Texas, upholding the constitutionality of the state law requiring age verification for adult websites. This bill uses the same language and thresholds.
24 other states have similar laws in place. So I strongly encourage all my colleagues to support this provision and the Kids Act overall, because this cannot wait. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentle lady yields back, and the chair will recognize the gentle lady from Michigan for 3 minutes for an opening statement.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Privacy is a fundamental right. And when it comes to our kids, that responsibility is even greater. And I just have to say I'm really deeply disappointed that we're here again today. We're considering a partisan package that falls short of what our families across this country are demanding, and what our children need.
I'm looking at the parents and their pictures of the children, and I've gotten to know some of them. And I know other families with children that have committed suicide or done other awful things because they had to act. They were, I'm gonna start to cry. We've got to do something. We keep talking about protecting kids online. We've held hearings and markups, and we've introduced bills.
And yet, time and time again, these efforts collapse into partisan exercises that lead nowhere. And meanwhile, our children are exposed to harmful content. Their data is harvested, and they're left without meaningful protections. We need, and we've been trying to work on bipartisan solutions. But instead of building consensus, my colleagues, I love you.
But we were jamming through a package that prioritizes the industry over accountability, that prioritizes industry over our kids. I know how you feel. I lost somebody to suicide, and no one can understand until you've been where you all are. And that's just not how this committee has historically operated, and it's not how we should be operating. I'm concerned that this package includes sweeping preemption.
As technology evolves and new harms emerge, we must continue to step up to protect children. We've got to set a strong federal floor. What makes me even more frustrated is that common sense bipartisan bills like my No Fentanyl on Social Media Act, which directs federal agencies to examine how traffickers target minors online and develop concrete recommendations to protect kids, are being wrapped into a broader partisan package that undermines meaningful privacy protections. Unfortunately, and I hate to say this because I love my friends, but this package is privacy and name only, and it fails to create real, enforceable standards that truly put children and families first. We can't continue to see it's our leadership on privacy.
We can't keep passing partisan measures while the digital world grows more complex for our kids. The American people expect us to work together and get this right. We all need to stand up for our families and for our young people. I hate I'm gonna have to vote against this package because it's not strong enough, but I hope we can all work together to actually deliver strong privacy protections our children deserve.
Speaker 2
Thank you. General lady yields back. Is there a further opening statement on the Republican side? Anyone on the Democrat side? General lady from New York is recognized for three minutes for your opening statement.
Speaker 12
Thank you. I'd like to concur with some of the statements that have been issued today. And I want to, of course, just put my heart out to all of the families of our victims and survivors who are here in the audience today. This bill, unfortunately, is a lot of some of the most cynical ways that Washington works, which is that we center or at the top of this bill, we will talk about kids, and we'll say that things are in, under the guise of the safety of children. But then when you actually open the hood and look at what's under there, it's used as a smokescreen for everything that big tech lobbyists want.
And what big tech lobbyists want is a national surveillance program where they can harvest the private and personal data of every American with zero actual protections for people and their privacy, and victims of some of the most heinous crimes that we've seen in America. And we don't have to just talk about this as though this is a theoretical issue. Just a couple of months ago, Discord, a platform where a lot of kids have been targeted and put in danger, mind you, tried to roll out this idea of a data verification or age verification technique. But what they did, they did it in this way that was also very emblematic of what we're against here today. They contracted out to a third-party private company to do facial scanning of not just kids, but also adults.
And then, and mind you, Discord has over 200,000,000 users every month. They decided to launch a team default setting where they will lock you into a, quote unquote, what they call a teen-appropriate experience, which means you can't access certain content. Which, mind you, if you are an adult that does not opt in, you then get cordoned off into the teen experience. Explain to me how that has anything to do with children's safety. And then if the only way to get out of that censored version is by scanning your face.
But what's more shocking is that Discord made the decision to move forward with this after they had been hacked and at least 70,000 users had their data stolen. So I don't see, even on the other side of this, kids were not protected, but a lot of people's privacy was violated. And I want to, once again, express my heartfelt condolences to all of the advocates here. And I do believe that we can both protect American safety and protect the kids. This package, unfortunately, does not do that.
And we want to get to a place where we, of course, protect victims and ensure the privacy of every American is honored as well. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you. The gentleman yields back any member of the Republican side of CNN. Doctor Ruiz is mister Rockenclaw, you're recognized for three minutes for opening.
Speaker 13
You, chairman. A little bit more than a year ago, the president held a meta inauguration where Mr. Zuckerberg was front and center, demonstrating to Americans exactly where this president's priorities were gonna lie. Since then, Meta and others have helped renovate the East Wing of the White House and have built data centers in Louisiana. And now they're getting the reward, which is a Meta markup. And that's exactly what today is.
Because what this bill does, to double down on what the congresswoman from New York just said, is this markup is a vehicle for a false flag operation by Meta, where they put at the front of these bills all these nice sounding ideas, and then they tuck in two things, an actual knowledge standard and preemption that nullifies everything that came before it. This is a blank check to big tech, and Democrats are gonna stand against it. The reason Meadow wants this so badly is that mister Zuckerberg doesn't like what's happening right now. He's actually having to answer to a jury of his peers about the treatment of young people online, and just finding some pretty disturbing things. A third of all 10 to 12 year olds in America are using Instagram, for example, despite the fact that Meta claims that should be impossible.
They're finding out that their chatbots are allowed to hold sensual conversations with young people. We're finding out that Meta suppressed research on child safety. We're finding out that internally and externally, they downplayed the risks to child safety despite knowing internally that their young users were suffering online. Mister Zuckerberg wants it to stop, and so he comes to congressional Republicans, and they make it stop for him. And this the opportunity cost there is that the litigation that can bring justice for these parents, for these children, will be halted in its tracks.
In my own district in Massachusetts, the town of Brookline has joined a class action suit that seeks to hold Meta and others accountable for treating our children like products whose attention spans can be monetized, whose sense of self and society can be corroded. This lawsuit would never have been possible had this law that we are marking up today been in effect, and we must prevent this false-flag operation from succeeding. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Jim O'Neill's back. Is there a further opening statement on the Republican side? Seeing none on the Democrat side? Seeing none, before we pull up the first bill, I'd like to take a point of personal privilege to recognize a valuable member of our team who is leaving us, Miss Kahnemani. Today is the last committee activity for our deputy staff director, Sophie Kahnemari.
I finally got saying your married name correctly because I've known you for so long. I've called you by your maiden name for so long. So Sophie joined my office in 2017 as my health care adviser, became my legislative director in 2019, and then later became my chief of staff. She has led our office and was instrumental in my becoming the chairman of this committee. And last year, Sophie came over as our deputy staff director, and has been an integral part of our team.
For all of her professional talents, which there are many, above all, she is a truly wonderful person. I've gotten to see her get married to her husband, Peter, become a mom with the birth of her son, Henry Beau, and I'm excited for her as she welcomes a baby girl this summer. And while I am so sad to lose her, I'm proud of all she has accomplished. I'm excited for her and her family as they begin this next adventure. And I'll ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Sophie for her service to this committee, and I appreciate it very much.
You're the best. So now we'll get back to the legislative business. The chair calls up HR 757 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 14
HR 7757, a bill to protect children and teens online, empower parents, and strengthen families, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by.
Speaker 2
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for a minute at any point. So ordered, and I will recognize myself for five minutes to speak on the bill. As we sit here today, childhood is being reshaped in real time by the digital world, and often in ways detrimental to American families. And parents feel it when you see it here. Kids are living it, and Congress has a responsibility to act.
That is exactly what the Kids Internet Digital Safety Act does. The Kids Act is the most serious, comprehensive piece of legislation to address online safety to date. There is no one-size-fits-all fix that can help American families navigate the challenges they face in today's digital childhood. No single policy can empower parents to fully remove every threat from the Internet. That is precisely why this bill takes a wide-ranging approach.
This bill brings together a dozen impactful proposals into one unified package. These measures are powerful on their own, but exponentially stronger together. This is the broadest online safety proposal for children and teens ever considered by Congress. The Kids Act, contrary to what you've heard, set safety data as a default. Platforms must maximize protection for children and teens, including safeguards against obscene and restricted products, unsafe communication, and design features that result in compulsive usage.
It empowers parents. It requires platforms to provide easy-to-use tools and controls through a centralized interface, making these tools accessible, intuitive, and not yet another burden on already stressed parents. It protects privacy and security. It bans targeted advertising and market research on children and teens by requiring the strongest privacy settings by default, and establishing strict privacy and security standards for personal information. It does hold big tech accountable.
The mill bill mandates annual third party audits, reporting mechanisms, and robust enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission and state’s attorneys general, resulting in the strongest enforcement regime proposed by congress in any online safety legislation. I wanna thank all the members both on and off this committee for your contributions, dedication, and commitment to putting forward the strongest approach to protecting kids online that Congress has ever seen. The kids app reflects all of our work, and we should be proud of it. This bill should be bipartisan. This bill includes a dozen separate bills, nearly all of which are bipartisan.
During negotiations, we accepted dozens of edits from the minority, and those edits are reflected in the bill before us. Protecting kids and empowering parents is not a partisan issue, and this bill largely reflects the universal policies we had a bipartisan agreement on. Urge all 54 of us in this room to support this bill. This isn't a moment for politics. It's a moment to govern, and children across our nation deserve it.
I yield back. Does anyone seek to recognize the bill? K. The gentlelady from Florida is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Members, I'd like to shine the light on one of the most consequential ways that House Republicans have vowed to the big tech companies and social media companies, and that's the elimination of the duty of care in the design of their products. There is no duty of care in this bill. A duty of care is a simple idea.
It carries enormous weight when we're talking about children's safety online. At its core, it's the basic expectation that companies should not design products in ways that put people, especially children, at unnecessary and foreseeable risk. We already applied this expectation to toys, to playgrounds, to cars, and to so many other products that children use every day. A duty of care simply brings the same common-sense standard into the digital world. In plain language, a duty of care means that if a company knows or should know that its product could harm people, it must take reasonable steps to prevent harm.
It doesn't demand perfection. It doesn't stifle innovation. It simply says, if you build a system that millions of children use, you must think about their safety when you design it. And that matters because social media platforms are not passive tools. They are engineered intentionally.
They are built around algorithms, engagement loops, and data collection systems that shape what children see, how long they stay online, and who can reach them. These design choices are powerful, and they can create predictable risks. Features like infinite scroll, autoplay, and algorithmic recommendations keep kids online far longer than is healthy. And children cannot fully understand or manage these risks. They don't have the developmental capacity to navigate complex data practices, targeted content, or manipulated manipulative design.
Our existing laws are not built for algorithmic systems. Traditional consumer protection frameworks don't address the way digital platforms collect data or shape behavior. A duty of care fills that gap. It requires companies to consider the real-world impact of their systems on young users and to take reasonable steps to reduce foreseeable harm in the way they're designed. And for lawmakers, duty of care provides a clear and workable standard.
It defines what reasonable precautions look like in the digital world. It creates accountability when companies ignore known risks. It encourages platforms to assess harms before launching new features, and it gives states and regulators a benchmark for enforcement, while helping courts evaluate whether a company has acted responsibly. It simply establishes a baseline obligation. If a platform knows that a system can harm children, it must act to reduce the harm.
And in practice, a duty of care can lead to meaningful improvements. It can push companies to reduce exposure to harmful designs, to limit contact between minors and unknown adults, to avoid addictive features targeted at children, to strengthen privacy protections, and to respond more quickly when harmful patterns emerge. These are the kind of protections families often assume already exist, but they do not. A duty of care helps ensure that when children go online, the companies that built those platforms have taken reasonable steps to keep them safe. It aligns the digital world with the expectations we already have in other parts of children's lives, that the adults in charge take responsibility for preventing foreseeable harm.
I so regret that you have weakened the standard and bowed to the big tech companies at the expense of our children. And this was one of the most consequential ways that you did that. I yield back my time.
Speaker 2
Gentle lady yields back. The chair recognizes the gentle lady from Indiana for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Chairman Guthrie, for bringing the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act before this committee markup today. I also wanna sincerely thank subcommittee chairman Bill Arrakis and your staff for investing in getting this legislation to the point it is today. I wanna thank the witnesses, parents, advocates who've shared their stories with me, and the expertise they've provided throughout this process. I know that there are concerns that the bill today before us is not perfect. But I do wanna note that this is a culmination of a lot of work by this committee to bring meaningful, durable protections to American children online, and our efforts are genuine.
To say otherwise is offensive to those of us who have been working on this issue, me personally, for at least the last three years. And I wanna see us get something done. I applaud my colleagues on the left. I share their perspective on preemption. But I also am very concerned that their focus stops at age 13 when, if you've read John Hate's Anxious Generation, you know that he pushes for a standard of a prohibition for social media under the age of 16.
This package will address a wide range of harms: addiction by design features, exposure to dangerous content, exploitation, lack of parental tools, unsafe AI chatbot interactions, and inadequate data privacy. It does create real obligations for platforms, not just voluntary commitments, and it enforces those obligations through the FTC and state attorneys general. This bill also includes several of my own legislative priorities that I do want to highlight, including the Safe Boats Act. We're in the middle of a chatbot revolution. Children are on the front lines.
Kids today aren't just scrolling feeds. They're forming emotional bonds with AI companions that simply simulate empathy, mimic authority figures, and are available at any hour. And in too many cases, those kids don't even know they are talking to software. We saw a tragic illustration of this when a 14-year-old lost his life after months of conversations with a chatbot that validated his most troubling thoughts rather than routing him to real help. That can't be the norm.
The Safebots Act creates common-sense baseline guardrails. It prohibits AI from impersonating licensed professionals. It requires age-appropriate disclosure, so minors always know they're talking to an AI, not a human. It mandates that platforms provide a crisis hotline when a minor raises self-harm or suicide. It requires reasonable take a break prompts after extended interactions, and directs the NIH to study long-term mental health effects of chatbots on minors.
This bill also includes the AWARE Act, which takes a foundational step that we should have taken years ago, equipping parents, educators, and children with clear, accessible information about the risks of AI chatbots and dangerous bots. Parents need to understand that when their child pours their heart out to a chatbot, that data may be harvested to train the next generation of AI models. They need to know how to identify a bot, how to recognize a manipulative or unsafe bot, and where to turn if something goes wrong. The Aware Act directs the FTC, in consultation with relevant agencies, to produce those resources. It's not another government report.
It's actionable guidance targeted to different age groups, delivered in a format that actually reaches families. And I go back again to my mission of having an age, at least an age 16 standard, for access to these platforms. Anything less than that creates tremendous loopholes that the tech companies will exploit. These provisions in the broader Kids Act package represent the kind of comprehensive and durable federal framework that families are hoping for. I know it's not perfect, but the research is clear, the harm is documented, and the technology is not going to slow down.
I encourage my colleagues to support the package as we continue to work on this. And, mister chairman, I thank you for your leadership, and I yield back.
Speaker 4
Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. Are there any other members wishing to recognize it on the bill? For what purpose does the gentleman from California receive recognition?
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna thank all the parents that are here holding up photos of your sons and daughters. I can see the pain. I see you, and I see your pain. And I wanna thank you for being here.
I wanna be direct. This bill and its current House form raise serious concerns that cannot be ignored. Two issues stand out above all others. One, the lack of a duty of care, and two, the broad preemption of state law. The absence of a duty of care means that platforms are not required to take proactive steps to protect children.
Let that sink in for a second. So there, you know, there's some good, perhaps, changes that they will do, but they're not required. Instead, they can rely on self-regulated, quote, unquote, reasonable policies as standard that have repeatedly failed to prevent harm. And who sets that standard? Themselves.
Oh, this is reasonable. They say, and they've been saying this, and they're not held accountable because of that. Without a clear legal obligation, our children remain vulnerable to exploitative practices, manipulative design features, and online harms that are well-documented. Equally concerning is the bill's broad preemption of state law. For example, in my state, states like California have already enacted strong protections for children online, including the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, which establishes robust privacy and safety standards for minors using digital services.
This house bill would effectively nullify those protections, stripping states of the authority to maintain or expand safeguards that are already in place. So it will make kids less safe in those states. In other words, this bill in those states will make kids more vulnerable, will hurt kids, and will take away protections. What the hell are we doing here? So Congress should set a federal floor for child safety, not erase state laws that are actively protecting kids today.
And, you know, they're gonna say, no, it doesn't, change a preempt state law. Well, this bill says that the only duty platforms have is to write their own rules and policies. And as long as they have their own rule, anything that holds them to a different standard is, quote, unquote, in conflict with health house cosa. K? State laws and state cases hold tech accountable under more protective standards than anything tech will write for themselves, thus the conflict.
It also says that actual knowledge is required both for regulation and for enforcement. So tech platforms can't be held accountable unless they have actual knowledge or willfully disregard that a child is on their platform. They're gonna say, we willfully do not want to do these harms. We're gonna take their word for it. So state laws say that tech platforms can be held accountable if they reasonably should have known that a child was on their platform.
That's not gonna be in effect anymore because of this bill. I also, mister chairman, wanna ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a letter opposing this bill signed by 161 parents whose children have died and 283 parents whose children have suffered severe psychological harm linked to social media, all of whom oppose this legislation. And by the parents nodding their head, yes. I'm assuming they're opposing this legislation here. Their voices reflect the real-world consequences of online harms and underscore the urgent need for stronger protections for children.
I urge my colleagues to recognize that we cannot prioritize industry convenience over child safety. A stronger duty of care and careful attention to state preemption are essential to ensure this legislation truly protects children, unless all you're doing is introducing a Trojan horse, something that may look like a gift, but, in fact, is dangerous. Every child deserves robust protections online, no matter where they live or their family's circumstances. Our responsibility is to ensure they have them. Thank you to the parents that are here, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentleman yields back, the chair recognized Mister Evans from Colorado for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 17
I am proud to speak in support of this historic package, the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act or Kids Act. The legislation will deliver the protection that America's children need and empower parents to be sure their kids are safe online. And I wanna thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue and for including my bipartisan legislation, the No Fentanyl on Social Media Act, in the bill. During subcommittee consideration of the No Fentanyl on Social Media Act last year, I mentioned my background as a police officer in the Denver Metro Area, and the tragic toll that I saw drugs like fentanyl take on the communities I worked in then and the communities I represent now. The proliferation of this drug over social media sites means that we have seen unacceptably high rates of drug overdose deaths among kids.
Colorado logged the second highest youth overdose rate in the nation just two years ago, with 75 percent of those overdoses being associated with fentanyl. Doing everything that we can in Congress to combat the scourge of this drug is a deeply personal mission for me, and I'll remind my colleagues that every 15 days under the previous administration, we lost the same number of Americans to drug overdoses as we lost in the entirety of the September 11 terrorist attacks. I'm a veteran of the global war on terror. I deployed overseas. That statistic speaks volumes, and that's why I'm grateful to see my legislative proposal, which assesses the full scope of this challenge and presents a comprehensive set of solutions, is gonna move forward in this committee.
I also wanna take a moment to highlight the historic nature of this legislation and the other bills that we're considering today, and speak to the importance of congressional action in kids' online safety. This committee is standing up to big tech companies in a way that's going to be able to survive First Amendment challenges, and it's going to put American children first by requiring them to implement common-sense default standards and empower parents with the oversight tools they need to protect their families. I'm a cop, spent over 10 years. I've personally put criminals behind bars who have exploited kids online. I'm a father of two boys, teenagers.
I know that today's current Internet landscape is a lawless environment that often puts kids in harm's right way, right under family's noses. I've personally met and worked with and responded to victims who would have benefited from reforms like those included in today's proposal, from age verification to parental monitoring tools. These aren't radical proposals. They're not even partisan proposals. The concept that you should verify a user's age before allowing them to download explicit apps is not controversial.
The concept that chatbots should inform minors that they're chatbots, that they're AI, and that they should not encourage suicide is not controversial. The concept that big tech companies should give parents the tools that they need to intervene if their child is exposed to harmful materials online, that's not controversial. These are literally 80 20 issues. The American people are tired of inaction. We have to deliver common sense legislation that will survive all of the court challenges that will inevitably come, and make sure that we give something durable that's going to protect kids.
America's youth are at a crossroads. Nearly half of teenagers concede that social media as it exists today harms people their age. 55% of parents are either extremely or very worried about teen mental health. Nine out of 10 parents are concerned about their kids' safety online. I've seen this.
I've personally responded to countless situations of kids, youth being a danger to themselves because of social media. And, unfortunately, I've had to respond when kids took their own lives because of the pressures or the interactions that they experienced on social media. So to my colleagues across the aisle who are considering voting against these bills today, don't let partisan divides come between our shared goal of protecting our nation's kids. Join us in taking decisive action to make a meaningful, durable, lasting impact on future generations of Americans by putting our kids' well-being first. Chairman Guthrie, I want to thank you for your leadership again in this space.
I implore all my colleagues today to join together in protecting kids, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Jim Lynn yields back, and the chairman recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado, Mr. Gett, for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 18
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister chairman, in your opening statement on these bills, you said this is not a moment for politics. And I agree. But I've been in congress for a long time now, and I find that what happens is frequently, particularly during an election year like this year, is politicians will claim that legislation stands for things that it just doesn't do. I call it, I have a name for it.
It's called fig-leaf legislation. What we say is we say we have a terrible scourge in our country of online abusive kids, and we see the result of it sitting right here today. And I wanna thank all of these parents. I wanna add my thanks to everybody coming here today for the sacrifices you and your families have made. I also wanna say every family sitting in this room wants congress to work together in a bipartisan way to solve this problem, not to pass a fig leaf bill where we can all say, oh, it's a terrible problem and our kids deserve more.
And we're gonna pass a bill that benefits big data, that benefits these countries, and that actually does nothing to help solve more deaths. I bet, as I said, I've been here a long time. And for a long time, I've seen this committee work on bipartisan legislation to solve problems like this, and we can do it. More than ten years ago, I was actually the chair of the Data Privacy Caucus with the former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Joe Barton, a Republican from Texas. And we issued a joint statement to mark the eighth anniversary, Data Privacy Day.
And we said eleven years ago, quote, we live in a digital age of smartphones, tablets, and social media. It is vital that consumers are informed about their rights to privacy online. It's also vital that businesses are held accountable for keeping consumers' information safe. Digital innovation and preserving personal privacy can and should go hand in hand. I think back just a couple years ago to September 2024, when the committee produced bipartisan bills that were focused on the well-being of our kids, and the Senate passed their version 9123.
But twenty-four hours before our markup, the bill was mysteriously changed to restrict a company's duty of care to reasonably prevent and mitigate harms to minors. Now look, two of my wonderful colleagues have already explained in depth why this matters. Our leader, Kathy Castor, has explained why the duty of care is so important. And our visionary, congressman Achenglaus, explained about why preemption standards are so important in case there's a glitch, in case someone needs to assert their rights under state law. We owe it to our kids.
We owe it to the kids whose pictures are breaking all of our hearts right now to get this right and to actually pass a bill and not a fig leaf bill. Because I'm gonna tell you something. I don't wanna be sitting here in a couple of years looking at this bill that we passed, this fig-leaf bill. I don't wanna be sitting here looking at the bill with a whole new crop of moms and dads holding a whole new set of photos of kids that we've lost because Congress did not achieve our goals, and we went and we fell short of our commitment to the families of America. And I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. The chair recognizes Missus Fedorchak of North Dakota for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 19
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your leadership on this issue. I also wanna acknowledge all the parents in the room, and recognize your pain and your concern. As a mother of three, I share that. I have three children.
My husband and I raised them in the wild, wild west of Internet and online exposure. They're now 20, 22, and 24. So they were going through this when all of this was new. I remember the day my daughter came home and asked for Snapchat, and my husband and I looked at each other. What is Snapchat?
And then she explained it and said, oh, it's this fun app where you get these photos and then they vanish. And my husband said, why would we ever allow you to have an app designed to send things that vanish? That can't be good. So we said no, and we said no. That was what we said all through their growing up.
But it was really hard. We would turn on the parental control devices, have no clue how to use them. We'd forget the passwords, then they'd be locked out for hours or days. Well, we figured this all out. It was a wild west.
I would have loved to have some of the items included in this bill today, that our chairman is bringing forward. It would have been a huge step in the right direction for my parent, for me, and my husband. Things like requiring the platforms to put safeguards in place to address harms for minors, limit design features that result in compulsive usage. Online safeguards for kids that are turned on by default. That should be the standard.
That's a simple change. Prohibiting platforms from advertising illegal products to kids. Prohibiting platforms from defaulting to algorithms that feed minors more and more of the information they're interested in. I love this one, providing parental controls over minors' app downloads. Just not allowing minors to download apps at will without a parent being involved.
These are significant steps in the right direction. It'll allow state attorneys general to enforce federal standards. Enforcement is a huge piece of the challenge. Bringing our local and state officials on board to help with that is a step in the right direction. It's not perfect.
I will admit it's not perfect, but there are some really powerful tools here. And I urge my colleagues on the other side to join us, take these steps forward. We can do more down the road, but this is a very important step in the right direction. So thank you, Mr. Godfrey, for bringing it forward. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentle lady yields back, and the chair recognizes the gentle lady from Massachusetts, Miss Treyhan, for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Protecting our kids online is one of the most urgent responsibilities that we face. It's a crisis for families in every community, in every state in our country, with devastating consequences as represented by the parents here today holding pictures of their lost children, their beautiful kids. That's why I am so tired of sitting here year after year, markup after markup, watching Congress act like we're taking this issue seriously, but passing nothing that's helpful. Parents and kids deserve better from their legislators than this song and dance that we go through every Congress.
They deserve constitutional, privacy-preserving, and evidence-based solutions, not political theater. I first want to acknowledge Ranking Member Polon and his team for working toward a bipartisan kids' safety package. I'm disheartened that the spirit of collaboration was ultimately not reciprocated in the Kids Act. And make no mistake, there is a bipartisan path forward. In fact, there are places where I think the kids' act represents some modest progress on constitutionality.
This bill inches away from the content-based regulation that the Supreme Court and district courts have repeatedly told us violates the First Amendment. The Kids Act doesn't get there fully, but it's moving in the right direction because laws that get struck down in court don't protect anyone. On age verification, the bill appears to recognize that a papers, please Internet, where all must identify themselves in every app, on every website, is terrible for privacy and cybersecurity. And once the infrastructure exists to track us online, our government may very well leverage it. We're already seeing this administration, their appetite for domestic surveillance.
Finally, I appreciate the bill's inclusion of transparency measures like third-party audits, but I wish it went further to protect our independent researchers who represent some of our best watchdogs. Despite these improvements, there's no way I can support what's in front of me. On preemption, I'm concerned, as many of my colleagues already pointed out, about the inconsistent approach across different titles and sections of the bill that would displace state laws that are working. Similarly, I share parents' concerns that the Kids Act could potentially negate scores of product liability lawsuits that I believe should have their day in court. On enforcement, I.
Speaker 20
This bill puts too much trust in an under-resourced FTC and disempowers state attorney generals. We should be making up for gaps in federal enforcement, not widening them. But we should be careful not to let the nature of the bills before us define the horizon of what this committee can do to protect our children online. There are whole policy areas that are entirely missing from the discussion, and we should say so. So let me just briefly reiterate my three-pronged strategy that I believe would actually protect kids in a way that uplifts privacy and respects the limits of the First Amendment.
First, restrictions on data collection that disrupt predatory business models. Second, competition policy that gives parents and kids real choices, like the App Store Freedom Act that I'm leading with Representative Kat Kmack. And third, strong independent enforcement that holds companies accountable. On data privacy in particular, this committee has plenty of material to learn from. There's model bills led by leaders on both sides of the aisle, both sides of this committee, dozens of state laws, and international statutes.
There's no shortage of policy options. We just need the political will. That's why, you know, I was pleased when last year Chairman Guthrie and Vice Chairman Joyce announced a privacy working group. Now, although that group consists only of Republicans, its formation signals that data privacy is foundational to any online safety regime, a stance that I agree with wholeheartedly. The timing is running out to get privacy legislation across the finish line before this Congress is over, and we need to get this done.
And I'm sure that I'm not the only Democrat ready to collaborate with the working group. I stand ready first as a mom to 15 and 11-year-old daughters, and second as a legislator to fight for a better future, to honor your courage being here today, a digital future for our kids that is safe, one that we can be proud of. Thank you. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentle lady yields back. The chair recognized Mister Kane from New Jersey for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 22
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful to Chairman Godfrey and his team for their tireless efforts to address the growing threats that children face online. Kids Internet Digital Safety Act, or Kids Act, takes an important step to address these concerns and harms. Particularly, I wanna highlight how this bill addresses the dangerous harms online gaming chats present to minors. Save a gaming act, bill I introduced, which was included in the Kids Act.
The online gaming provisions in this bill provide robust protections to keep kids safe on online video game platforms and prevent harmful interactions with strangers and predators. Ensures that every user under the age of 17 cannot participate in a chat unless they receive approval from their parents. Social gaming poses a very real threat to minors. Data is alarming. Nearly 70 percent of teens report playing online games with strangers at least weekly.
We know that predators often use shared interest in a video game to build trust with a child. This show approximately two thirds of minors had an online only contact that asked them to provide to move from public chat into a private conversation on another platform. This vulnerability can lead to child exploitation and must be stopped. Kids Act takes an important step in addressing these harms. It states that for users under the age of 17, they should not be participating in chats, particularly with adults, unless a parent explicitly allows it.
I've heard too many stories of New Jersey families and American families who have suffered due to a lack of robust protections for children and teens. Teen Kids Act gives parents the choice and the tools to limit their child's ability to communicate with strangers online, disrupting this cycle and protecting users from malicious encounters with strangers. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentleman yells back, and the chair recognizes mister Peters from California for the
Speaker 23
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm just strike the last word. So today, we're considering the Online Safety Act, a bill that could transform the ways kids interact with the Internet by changing rules around algorithms, data sharing, private messaging. And while the Internet can offer imaginable opportunities, it also comes with real risks. Over the last two years, we've repeatedly heard from individuals like the parents who sit with us today about the ways in which their family members have been harmed online.
Algorithms on social media platforms can suggest or amplify harmful content to kids, leading them down a dangerous path. Additionally, addictive design features like infinite scrolling, autoplay, and push notifications, which are intentionally designed to maximize engagement, can be especially detrimental for minors who are spending more time online. And to the parents here today, thank you for being here. Thank you for sharing your stories. Thank you for your advocacy on behalf of kids like yours, to make sure that other families do not experience what you've had to endure.
And I apologize to you that we will not come up today with something that's going to answer what we need. Congress has responsibility to create guardrails where industry self-regulation has failed, and the Kids Online Safety Act before us today falls short of that. I would just highlight again, the main thing I think we need is a duty of care. The current senate version contains a duty of care provision that holds tech companies legally liable for violations of the bill and would require that platforms design and operate their platforms in ways that mitigate risks to kids. You know, the chairman referenced the idea of extra enforcement from outside agencies, that these companies will whisk those away like so many flies.
It's not gonna matter to them. What you need is a duty of care that imposes a duty which also sets a legal standard, and has to be on their bottom line because only those companies are in a position to actually do the work to protect these kids. From the outside, we can't do that. So you have to put a duty of care on the bottom line of these companies because that's the way that they'll be incentivized to respond and to do the right thing, and it's the only way. And we don't have that today.
We had that in the senate bill, and we're gonna have to have that before we come to something that's really gonna solve the concerns that you all have that we all share over here. And I don't wanna attribute anybody to anyone bad motives, but this is just a weak, weak attempt. Let me say too, I thought Mister Ruiz explained really well that if we enacted this, it would actually set us back in a lot of places. So it actually makes the situation worse by preempting the state laws that are out there. Now my colleagues know, by the way, that I'm a fan of one standard, one national standard that's a strong standard, that can be interpreted by courts consistently.
That's not too hard to implement for folks so that we can have new competitors enter the market. We don't have that today, so I will not support pre-emption. But I want my colleagues to know that if we can come up with a standard that protects everyone, I'm open to preemption. I'd like one federal standard that we could rely on, but this is not it. So, I will vote against this bill.
I urge my colleagues to join me. And today, I will surprise many people by voting against the preemption provisions because I'm big for one federal standard. But I can't, I would not wanna use this to preempt what's out there today. This would make the situation worse, and I think we've got more work to do. So I'm sorry about that.
But, you know, we have a lot of people in here who wanna address your concerns in a way that will really be meaningful to you and will work. And so thank you for being with us, and with that, yield back.
Speaker 2
Jim Munn yields back. Is there any further discussion on the Republican side? Seeing a gentlelady from Washington, Dr. Schreyer is recognized for five minutes. I'm just gonna go and send your ID.
Speaker 24
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. I am incredibly frustrated by this markup today and the inclusion of this highly partisan package. The so called kids act includes not just a watered down version of the kids online safety act or COSA, but a version that will be actively harmful to kids and that I believe sets back our progress on holding big tech accountable. The original and the Senate-passed versions of COSA included the duty of care standard.
The standard means that social media companies must exercise care in the implementation of their design features to actually prevent and mitigate harms like compulsive and prolonged use. And a strong federal duty of care standard will be an enormous protection for kids online, when we know for a fact that despite knowing the harms, tech companies have designed social media apps to keep kids hooked as long as possible. In 2020, Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, conducted a study internally on the effect of users deactivating their social media accounts. And the results showed that users actually reported lower feelings of depression, anxiety, loneliness, and social isolation. So what did Meta do?
They buried it. Big tech knows exactly what their platforms are doing to their users, and there are no users more vulnerable out there than kids. Enforcing a duty of care would change these companies' behavior because it would allow us and parents to hold them accountable for the harms that they are causing to kids. This bill has not only eliminated the duty of care standard included in previous versions, it actually bans any duty of care at the federal or state level. How convenient, considering that the assumption of a duty of care is the basis of most of the lawsuits from parents whose children have died as a result of social media harms.
And by the way, it is parents who are pleading for these standards, parents who have lost their kids because of the very real dangers of social media and who have lost so much and still come here to congress to try to make sure that other parents don't lose their children too. People who are watching this on TV can't see that dozens of these heartbroken parents are here today, and they want a stronger bill. And they're nodding right now because they want a stronger bill. Several visited me yesterday, and they asked me to vote against this watered-down bill that will not prevent more deaths. Mister chairman, I am very grateful. Mister Ruiz already requested that this letter be entered into the record.
It assigned 161 parents whose children have died and 283 parents whose children suffered severe psychological harm from social media that opposes the version of COCA that we are voting on today. This package and this version of COCA are a pale comparison to the bipartisan, bicameral version of COCA that I was so proud to help introduce and advocate for in the last Congress. And instead, today, we're voting on a version that would not only fail to truly hold big tech accountable for how they've hurt kids, we have a version that would prevent grieving parents from seeking justice and that would ensure that social media companies could be held accountable. Big tech is preying on our kids. There is no dispute about that.
They are designing apps for purposeful addiction and profiting off the results. And today, we are voting on a bill that would make sure they can keep doing just that. My colleagues say this bill will protect kids online, but it actually just undermines every way we and parents have to enforce protection. I've been a pediatrician for over 20 years, and I have seen firsthand how the rise in social media has impacted our kids. And I know how damaging social media and online addictions are for a developing brain, and we are already years behind, as you have heard from my colleagues, in passing the kind of comprehensive protections that our kids need and deserve.
And we can't keep wasting time with these partisan exercises and actually damaging the legislation. So I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill that protects big tech more than it protects the children. We owe children and families so much more, and we can and must do better, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
General Lady yields back. Is there further discussion? The general lady from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 25
Wholeheartedly agree with you that protecting kids' online safety is an absolute imperative for this committee and for this Congress. But I do not agree with you that the Kids Act does that. And it's really important that we get this right, and this bill does. I wanna make clear that this is not a case of making the perfect bill the enemy of a very good bill. The objections that you've heard from my colleagues on the democratic side of the aisle today are about the exceptions that swallow the rule.
The specific provisions in this bill that my colleagues have already explained in much more detail, that render the rest of it meaningless. And that's the very opposite of what we are supposed to be doing here. And there are many parents who are here today in this hearing room with us, many more who cannot be with us in this hearing, but who are watching, who are advocating, who are pleading with us, and who are living with loss, grief, and fear for their children. Their children who have been harmed, their children who have died, their children who are continuing to be harmed as a result of online activity. They want us to do something, but they don't just want us to do anything so that we can say we did something, which is very much what this bill feels like.
They want us to get it right, and they want us to actually help make kids safer online. So I wanna use my time that I have to recognize some of the parents who are here today who oppose today's bill, and for whom we must continue to work to get this legislation right. We have with us today Amy Neville, parent of Alex Neville, forever 14. Mary Rhodey, parent of Riley Basford, forever 16. Tony Roberts, parent of England Roberts, forever 14.
Laurie Shod and Avery Shod, parents of Anna Lee Shod, forever 18. Tricia Mesieski, parent of Levi Mesieski, forever 13. Juliana Arnold, parent of Coco Connor, forever 17. Jenny Deserio, parent of Madison Eden, forever 16. Aaron Ping, parent of Avery Ping, forever 16.
Kristen Bride, parent of Carson, forever 16. Jamie from Kentucky, parent of Audrey, forever 14. Steve Kay of Washington, parent of John Doe, 13. Thank you all for being here. Thank you for turning your overwhelming loss and pain into a purpose for the protection of kids and families across this country.
We see you. We hear you. We are grateful to you. We are listening to you, and we will do better for you. Thank you.
Mister chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen, lady yields back. Mister Carter from Louisiana is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 27
Mister chairman, thank you. I consistently hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying this is not a perfect bill. And, respectfully, I say it's not even close. Look at the faces of the surviving family members, the parents. Look at the beautiful faces of their children.
They took time out to be with us today because they wanna weigh in, because they wanna be a part of a real solution, not a window-dressed solution, not one that gives big tech a pass. As a father of two boys and a mental health advocate, protecting youth mental health is a top priority for me. That's why I have serious concerns about AI chatbots and their impact on our children. AI is a powerful tool that can be beneficial when used correctly, but studies and data evaluating the risks and impacts of children using chatbots online are extremely limited. This puts children's mental health in vulnerable and dangerous positions.
More work must be done in this space, and a study would be a step in the right direction, not a piece of legislation that will be shelved never again to be revisited. The bill we're currently considering, the kids' Internet and digital safety act, includes a study that includes a study, this very issue. However, it's unfortunate that the bipartisan agreement that we have, this study, is being overshadowed by a larger package of bills, for which we have yet to reach a compromise. For weeks, Republicans and Democrats have been working together to reach an agreement that will protect children's online safety and data privacy, something I know you all want in this room. I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are sincere in their efforts to protect our children, but the pressure from big tech has overshadowed even that sincere effort.
I believe their efforts are sincere. However, we have fallen short because we have allowed Big Tech to rear its ugly head, its ugly checkbook, its far-reaching impact. We must protect children's online safety and data, something I know all members really want. I urge my Republican colleagues to come back to the negotiating table, work with us to have a real, robust, meaningful, comprehensive plan to give comfort to these families, to give comfort to these people who took time out of their schedules. This should not be partisan.
This should not be about anything other than reining in the power of the Internet, the power of the predators who would seek to destroy, to infiltrate systems that impact our young people. We see it every single day. We see the potential leave us far too soon. The next cure for cancer, the next president, the next Supreme Court justice may very well have been any of these beautiful children who had bright futures but fell prey to predators who took advantage of weaknesses in the system. That's a day we're playing games with because we left the table while making great progress.
And you will notice that they've buried in good components of this bill with really bad components of this bill, which forces us to vote against some measures that we like because they are tied together with measures that are woefully short in preparing and providing the kind of relief that you've asked for. As a father, I feel your pain. It's painful to watch you sit here knowing that we're at the cusp of doing something great, but we're stopping far before we cross that line of having meaningful, not window dressing, meaningful protections that will save the lives of our children. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing, table this measure, and let's go back to the drawing board and come up with something that's real. Mister chairman, my time has expired, and I yield.
Speaker 2
Gentleman yields back. The chair recognized the gentleman from New Jersey, mister Menendez.
Speaker 28
Thank you, chairman. I wanna thank all the family members. Thanks. For being here today, for lifting up the stories that you come and advocate with. You know, I have two kids. They're five and three.
And so many of us have young kids, and we thought that coming to congress, we'd be able to take on the challenges that have impacted your lives directly. And it's frustrating to sit in this room and have to see you here, that to know if this isn't a partisan divide, that there have been versions of this bill which have the things that we want. So we're not asking for the impossible. So don't make it seem like we're the ones who are being partisan when you're driving this version forward, when you know it doesn't do enough. And the hundreds of parents who have signed a letter have said it does not do enough, and you're going to turn your back on them.
Turn your back on all the children who are impacted by big tech. You know, we'd say that when we look at the future generation and the things that they're dealing with, the challenges they have, the aspirations that they have, that we raise them. Our decisions are to create the environment that they were raised in, and we failed. People that were in this chamber before us have failed. And now we have an opportunity to get it right moving forward for my children, for others, for grandchildren, for nieces and nephews, and we're not taking that opportunity.
And my colleagues across the aisle are saying, trust us on this piece of legislation. When in this congress, they sat here and said, trust us on the one big beautiful bill, and that a trillion dollars out of Medicaid won't hit families, that the expiration of the ACA tax credits won't make health care more affordable, expensive. And we've seen the impacts this has had on families across the country, and we can't take your word on it. I'd rather take the word of all the parents here who are asking us to go back to negotiate in good faith, as we have to get a bill that actually moves us in the right direction, that has a duty of care standard, that has a more narrow preemption provision so we can move the ball in the right direction. But we can't sit here and pat ourselves on the back with this legislation when we know it doesn't do enough, based on the prior bipartisan bills that this committee has entertained that have been before the Senate.
So I'm a no on this bill, and I encourage all my colleagues who have done good work across the aisle to be no. Don't settle for this. Listen to the parents. Listen to the advocates in this room. Do the right thing and vote no, come back to the table, and let's get something done.
Because if it is bipartisan, then we will know it works for all Americans. It's resilient, and it will get the job done. I literally beg you to vote no. Listen to these folks, and please don't make them come back for more hearings in future Congresses because we failed to do our job today. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Jimin yields back, the chair recognizes a gentle lady from Virginia, Miss McClellan, five minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 29
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I also want to thank the parents. I'm one of the less than 1% of members of Congress who is a mother to children 18. I've got a 10-year-old girl and a 15-year-old boy, and I am constantly trying to strike the right balance between giving them enough freedom to grow and develop and figure out who they are, like I had as a kid as part of Generation X when my parents literally would let me go out and play until the street lights came on. And it was much easier for them to strike that balance between giving me the freedom to develop who I am today and keeping me safe.
And you've experienced my worst nightmare. Now my kids were born right after smartphones were invented, in the beginning of social media, I worked for a tech company. I thought I was pretty sophisticated at figuring out how this stuff works, but it changes so rapidly. I can't keep up. I can't keep up with these algorithms.
I can't keep up with the new apps and what they do, and how predators are finding new ways to exploit it. Just like as a parent, sometimes I can't keep up with the fact that my children know more about this technology and how it changes than I do. They can figure out how to get around things that we think will keep them safe. A lower technology example, our schools ban cell phones. You had to bring it in and put it in a yonder pouch because parents would lose their minds if they said kids couldn't take them with them at all, because the phone can be a tool to know they're safe.
And yet these kids figured out instantly how to get around that policy. They can figure it out. Now I know everybody in this committee wants to keep our kids safe and is trying to reach the right goal, but I.
Speaker 29
This debate boils down to two simple issues. One, who should bear the brunt of keeping our kids safe online? Parents who are doing the best they can in an incredibly complicated Internet ecosystem are the tech companies that develop and operate the apps and the programs and the games that the kids use, which most parents can't begin to fathom how they work or how rapidly they change. And without a duty of care, this bill effectively shifts that burden to the parents and says, you gotta be the expert on the new algorithm and how it's going to addict your child. You have to be the expert on how sophisticated criminals figure out how to exploit your children, rather than the tech companies.
I think that's the wrong answer. Second, these bills aren't future-proof. They can't be. Technology changes too rapidly. That's why they should be the floor and not the ceiling for protection for our kids.
And who is better positioned to respond rapidly to evolving technology? Our states that have been incubators of innovation are Congress. Well, having been in both now, Congress is extraordinarily slow. We're not good at being proactive. We're not that good at being reactive quickly.
Just this congress alone, since March, 62 legislative days have been canceled, effectively delaying any legislation for at least two months. Last congress, it took several weeks, first just to elect a speaker and then to elect a second one. States can respond much more quickly and often be more innovative than Congress. Yet this broad preemption provision handcuffs the very laboratories of innovation. Let me ask a question.
How long has it taken Congress to adopt a comprehensive privacy legislation? Oh, I forgot. We haven't done it yet. We owe it to our children and all parents, especially these, to get it right. And this bill doesn't do that.
Idiot, back.
Speaker 2
General Idiot's back. Any further discussion? Gentlemen from Texas is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 30
Parent in America knows the Internet isn't the same place that it was 20 years ago. A lot has changed. And, as a parent of a 19 year old who was recently a teenager, I know that children today are growing up in a digital ecosystem that is driven by algorithms and data, how data harvesting and platforms that are truly designed to keep them scrolling. And congress has a responsibility to step in and enact meaningful guardrails to rein in some of the study and harmful effects on children's long term well-being. This should be no surprise to anyone that even children now are saying that they wish that they didn't have these social media devices and some of these apps in their lives.
Even the children are waking up. And we know that, as parents, social media companies track what children watch and what they click, what they search, and who they interact with. It's about setting some basic guardrails up so companies can't exploit kids for data for profit. Protecting kids online should absolutely not be a partisan issue. I think that democratic parents and republican parents alike are hearing from families worried about what their kids are being exposed to online.
And if we're serious about protecting our kids, then we have to work together to pass something that's strong and that's enforceable, and contains privacy protections. If we are not serious, then Republicans will continue to ignore us and move forward with this bill. Instead of working with Democrats to craft a strong privacy standard that can pass the House, they're pushing messaging bills that ignore the input of parents, and that's not good. If you know how harmful these platforms can be for kids, then why turn these solutions into partisan fighting, instead of actually rolling up our sleeves and getting something done for the kids and the parents of America? And I want to be clear here.
Democrats are not trying to weaken protections. We want stronger protections. And I gotta tell you something, and this is something that for the tech companies and everybody out there to hear, if we don't pass it now, because parents want something. And like I said, kids are saying that they wanna do something. Something's going to eventually give.
We ought to be taking proactive steps to do something now to prevent future tragedies because the status quo is just not going to, it's not going to stand. It won't, it's not sustainable, the road that we're on right now. So we can either do it now or wait for more tragedies to happen, and do it later. Let's work together. Let's pass strong privacy protections for kids and finally bring our laws into the twenty-first century.
Mister chairman, are you back?
Speaker 2
Jim, yield back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, mister Rock and Claus, for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 13
Chairman, thank you. I wanna address something that is actually not being discussed overtly right now, is very much a common theme in a lot of the lobbying that happens around these bills, which is China. So I served on the select committee on China for two years and was actually an original co-lead of the bill to force the divestment of TikTok from ownership and control by the Chinese Communist Party. So I consider myself, in many ways, a hawk on the competition between United States and China on technology, whether it's online technology, whether it's biotechnology, etcetera. These companies exploit that, you know, patriotic drive for The United States to maintain a science and technology edge in the twenty first century in an unbelievably cynical way.
They come office to office, and they say, you know, if you regulate us, we're all gonna lose to China. That's what's gonna happen. And I just wanna prebut that right now, how absurd that claim is. First of all, look at what China itself does for its own social media usage for young children. Okay?
It's a 90-minute time limit every single day. No usage at night, and it's all educational content. You think that slop that is spread across the Internet that our kids are subjected to happens in China? No way. Nope.
They have much stronger content controls. Now I am not claiming that that's what we should do here in the United States. It's a different system. We have different values. But let's not claim that somehow China is gonna outcompete us on tech because they allow their tech companies to attention-frac our children the way that our tech companies want to do.
The way that we are gonna outcompete China is by investing in education, in building a thousand trade schools across this country to give our kids the skills they need to succeed, by surging one on one high dosage tutoring in math and literacy after we've seen declines in academic performance since the pandemic. We do not need these tech companies to also claim that they are the ones who should be stewards of our children and the architects of our strategy against China. We can do that by investing in our children. And I don't wanna hear claims that somehow common sense regulation on behalf of parents and families holds us back in competing with China. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Jimin yields back. Is there further discussion? Seeing none, I have an amendment at the desk entitled dash_008. The clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 14
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 7757 offered by Mister Guthrie of contempt.
Speaker 2
Objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and I recognize myself for five minutes in support of the amendment. Let me start by saying that we need to do more. We absolutely do need to do more. And that's why I have additional bills on the markup today. This bill, the kids act, reflects where we could get in a bipartisan way.
That's where we could get both sides to agree. Well, we have additional bills on the men today, and we do respect the parents here. It's important that you're here. It is critical that you're here. Mr. Chapman is here.
Mister, you guys come and you advocate, and you want to change things so your kids can be better. We have Sammy's bill on the floor today, in honor of your daughter. And it is, and it is, and it, so it's important that it's here because the reason it's not in this package of bills is because we couldn't get bipartisan support. Of all the things everybody talked about today, what Sami's bill does is allow a parent to have complete control of their child's phone, and we can get bipartisan agreement on that. Because we don't know why.
Maybe because we're going up to the age of 16. We had a member on this side of the house. They had a daughter that was 15. A lot of the names that were written out were 14, 15, and 16. No.
Current laws bring it to 13. We're gonna bring it to 16. And so we are moving forward, and people will have the opportunity today when we vote for Sammy's law. Now there are Democrats and Republicans, but it's Debbie Washington, general lady from Florida, Washington Charles, and gentlemen from Georgia, mister Carter doing this bipartisan. And we couldn't get it in this portion of the bill because we couldn't get bipartisan agreement because it gives parents complete control and oversight of their child's phone up until they're 17 years old.
And we couldn't get bipartisan agreement on that. So all the stuff that we're hearing from the other side of the aisle, we're gonna see when Sami's Law comes up for a vote, what they really believe and where they really stand. And the claim that big tech supports this bill and what we're doing today, you only have to look at social media platforms today to see where big tech has activated against our work today because we're holding them accountable. We are fighting for parents' rights. We're here to protect kids.
And some of the comments that people made about the underlying bill, this amendment that I just call up makes these changes. It seeks to ensure that parents do have the justice that the other side in courts. We've added a rule of construction to the conflict preemption in the Costa bill that clearly carves out multiple critical state laws. That's sort of the preemption is too strong. Preemption's not strong enough.
What we do is make sure that state laws on trespass, state laws on contract, state laws on tort, and state laws on product liability are still in effect from this bill. That's what this amendment does. The FTC acts and the state general consumer protection laws still stand, such as many FTC acts and the state department data privacy legislation still stand. Adding this rule of construction results from talking with stakeholders, inherent interest from stakeholders, inherent the position of parents with stakeholders, including trial attorneys. We talked with a trial attorney involved in litigation to help ensure that the Kids Act will not disrupt ongoing cases against big tech.
What you heard from the other side, this amendment ensures that you have the opportunity to go forward. We still can't get them to support it. These changes address ongoing efforts like litigation against roadblocks that will not be affected by this law. In fact, I spoke to our home state attorney general. Kentucky is involved in the case against roadblocks.
I absolutely want the case against roadblocks to go forward. So it says this will not undermine their current litigation. So you gotta know what the facts are and what you've been hearing throughout this morning. The Kids Act works in tandem with this important legislation, and preventing the type of litigation is not our intent. This rule of construction, which is added in this amendment, helps make clear that we're working with law enforcement officials to protect children and teens online.
So those who are here in that 14, 15, and 16 year olds, just know we're here to protect that. That's part of where our discussions broke down, which, unfortunately, it did. But we're gonna have the opportunity to go on the record later today, to see where people stand on these issues. And I will tell you, my side of the aisle is gonna support it. And I will yield back, and I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey.
Speaker 3
I just wanna be brief, but I do wanna stress, mister chairman, that I don't believe that this AINS corrects the objections that the various democrats have been making in their statements over the last hour or so. And that's why we're gonna proceed with a number of amendments, which we do think will make improvements to the bill. But this AINS does not correct the objections that we've had to this bill. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 2
Does anybody have a discussion with that? The gentlelady from, I'm sitting on our side of the aisle. Is anybody on our side of the aisle? Yes. The gentlelady from California is recognized for five minutes to speak on them, ma'am.
Speaker 31
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna start by saying that AAJ, the American Association for Justice, who are lawyers that represent families and parents in litigation, opposes this amendment. So to suggest that this amendment fixes that and that it's not gonna be disruptive at all to parents' abilities to file lawsuits and to hold social media companies accountable is, I think, disingenuous. And so I wanted to start by correcting that record. Second, mister chairman, I disagree with your assessment of how you started the conversation, in saying that this bill is that this package of bills is failing, and why it's failing.
I wanna start by reminding everybody that in 2024, this committee chaired by Cathy McMorris Rogers had a hearing on the Kids Online Safety Act. The Senate passed that bill by a vote of 91 to 3. That's a truly bipartisan effort. Then the chair of this committee, Kathy McMorris Rogers, had a hearing here, and it passed out of this committee unanimously. That's what bipartisanship is.
It's not taking a bill that was truly bipartisan, gutting the bill to basically say, hey, we're gonna make it harder for parents to hold social media companies accountable. We're gonna make it harder for the parents. Who are we first for? Are we the first parents? Are we for the kids or for the big money?
Who are we for? Now I couldn't help but remember that I had to attend the inauguration. Who was at the inauguration? Let's see. Big tech CEOs, lots of them.
And as if I remember correctly, they donated 1 million dollars each. Did that have some influence? I don't know. I'm just noticing the facts that we were able to do this in a bipartisan way. And now, all of a sudden, there are efforts to put in provisions that are gonna help prevent liability from big tech and from the social media companies.
So I had not planned on speaking today, but when I hear some inaccuracies and when we hear about talking about bipartisanship, there is a bipartisan way to do it. We have done this. Getting a bill that was bipartisan, though, and getting it, and then throwing in 11 other bills to it and putting it into a package and saying, you see, Democrats are not for kids' safety is total misinformation, disinformation, misguidance. Let's go back to the real bipartisanship. Let's go back to my colleagues who actually were for this other piece of legislation in 2024 that had this duty of care that was on the platforms, not on parents, and not on kids, and not making it harder to hold them liable.
And so with that, I oppose not just the amendment but the package, and agree we should table this and go back to what was done and where we were at when we had almost everybody in the Senate and at least everybody in this committee in 2024. And I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen from Texas is recognized for, can you deal me five minutes? Will you deal with me for a couple seconds anyway?
Speaker 2
Thank you. So the gentleman from California, in my opening statement, I said we all want child safety. If anything came out of my mouth that we're all want child safety, we all want our children to be protected on the Internet. What I'm saying is the package of bills before us, it's not bipartisan in the sense that both sides agree with it. It's by all of the bills that we could agree upon in a bipartisan way.
Some things fell out, and they've been added to separate bills on the outside of this package. This is my point. And also, there was concern that
Speaker 31
Will the gentleman yield for a minute? That's not accurate, though. You're suggesting that the kids' online safety part is bipartisan, and it's not. That's why we're not supporting this.
Speaker 2
I'm sorry. It's right. What I'm saying is we didn't, this is where we could get to on the bipartisan negotiation. So the second thing that I wanna say is that there was concerns that people had that this would stop the litigation in the courts, and this has been added to make sure that the roadblocks, my state's going after them, and I'm glad they are. And so this makes sure those continue forward.
So I'll yield back to Mr. Weber.
Speaker 32
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's exactly what I raised when I discussed with you and the staff, that I was concerned. The cause of actions would not be had. Number 1. Number two, it would violate, well, I would actually supersede state's rights.
They didn't like that. We heard from some of our schools in the district that they didn't like it, and so we had the discussion, and you made it clear that it didn't supersede states' rights. It will, hopefully, it will not affect any cause of actions, because our kids are important, and our families are important. And when these things happen, then those big texts need to be held accountable. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentleman's time. You have from color yield back? He yielded back. Okay. Gentleman, gentle lady from Michigan is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 11
Thank you. I yield, what time he needs to that ranking minority Frank Palon.
Speaker 3
Thank you. I wanna thank the gentlewoman from Michigan. Look. I don't wanna belabor this too much because I do think we should get to the amendments that we do believe as Democrats will help make this bill better. But I just have to explain.
There were plenty of negotiations over the last few months. Right? The bottom line is, most of the things that we as Democrats wanted in the bill were not included. Right? And I just wanna mention a few things.
Why do we have a problem? You've heard it all from my democratic colleagues. But, basically, we think that this bill lets big tech off the hook with a nearly impossible to meet knowledge standard. It stops progress to protect kids in the state with preemption of state laws, which is also going to impact ongoing lawsuits brought by parents. It makes vulnerable kids less safe, including kids in unsafe home environments.
And, also, as I mentioned, it doesn't include legislation to stop data brokers from profiting off kids' data. So there are all these things and more that have been mentioned. I suggest we just get to the amendments at this point, which we believe if passed, would help correct the deficiencies in this bill. I don't think where they're gonna pass, because the Republicans will probably oppose them, but hope springs eternal. And I would yield you want no.
Speaker 18
Thank you. Okay. I'm about to get lawyerly now. And I wanna say, I appreciate my colleague from Texas being concerned about the state, the preemption of the state laws. The problem is the language in this AINS that's allegedly designed to protect the preemption or the state tort law.
It actually, the preemption provision plus a rule of construction carving out tort law, does not save the cases or state laws that are more protective of kids. And here's why. House COSA creates so many conflicts with more protective state laws that a rule of construction can't save them. The conflict preemption provision will control and wipe out the cases and the state laws that they are based on. So a rule of construction won't work.
The exceptions have to be exceptions to the conflict preemption, as exemptions to the preemption language itself. So let me try to explain that a little more in depth. Okay. The House KOSA says platforms owe no duty of care. State laws are based on the assumption of duty of care.
So if you knock out the duty of care on conflict preemption, there's no tort law to save. There's no negligence case if you have no duty, if you can follow that. So, also, House Kosa says the only duty platforms have is to write their own rules and policies. And as long as they have their own rule, anything that holds them to a different standard is, quote, in conflict with House Cosa. And so, also, it says actual knowledge, actual knowledge is required for both regulation and enforcement.
So tech platforms can't be held accountable, and this is exactly what Congressman Castro and others have been saying. Tech platforms can't be held accountable unless they have actual knowledge or willfully disregard that a child is on their platform. State laws say that tech platforms can be held accountable if they reasonably should have known that a child was on their platforms. That's the difference. So if we're gonna be serious about protecting parents' cases, you have to say that in the bill.
Otherwise, the courts are going to rule that they're not protected. One more thing. The Supreme Court has abolished the presumption against preemption in express preemption cases. They said in 2016 in a case that, quote, because the statute contains an express preemption clause, we do not invoke any presumption against preemption, but instead focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress's preemptive intent. That means that the preemption language that's routinely used to bar supplementary, more protective state law cases, even when they provide essential protections for families.
And I have more, but I think you get the gist of it. And if not, I'm happy to say it again. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you. The ranking member wants to move to the amendments. Is that any further discussion on the Ames? Seeing none, the gentle lady from, for the Ames, discussion on the Ames. Gentle lady from Indiana is recognized for her amendment.
Speaker 2
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thirty years ago, Congress decided that 13 was the age of Internet adulthood, not because science said so, but because it was politically convenient. And in 30 years, no one has ever gone back to ask whether or not we got it right. We didn't. Researchers have documented that the most dangerous windows of harm fall between the ages of 11 and 13 for girls, and 14 and 15 for boys.
These aren't statistics to me. These are children. These are the ages when depression sets in, when eating disorders take hold, when kids should be playing sports and making friends, and instead are staring at screens, being told they're not enough. I have sat with parents who've lost their children to the harms of these platforms. That's why I'm here today.
I have my own personal story about having an inability to take away an app that my 13-year-old daughter downloaded on her phone. And when she was engaging in unsafe behaviors, I contacted the platform and had a complete inability to have the account deleted. They told me she's 13, she's legally able to have the account based on the 1996 law saying that a 13-year-old can have access to the Internet. So my RESET Act asks a simple question: is 13 still the right threshold? The science says no, the data says no, parents who've lost children because of what happened to them online say no.
At 16, adolescents are not yet adults, but they are more mature, more resilient, and better equipped to navigate these platforms than at age 13. Personally, I would prefer this be 18, but we were trying to work in a bipartisan fashion, and moving the threshold to 16 gets ahead of the most dangerous exposure windows. This is not a radical idea. Australia has done it. The European Union is moving in the same direction, and Big Tech will push back.
They always do. There are concerns that have been raised about the First Amendment, but the eleventh circuit has already signaled that laws like this can survive constitutional scrutiny. The RESET Act is designed with those legal principles in mind, creating a clear national standard enforced by the FTC and state’s attorneys general. Mister chairman, I appreciate you working with me and for being open to the case for a 16 year old minimum standard. I'm committed to continuing to work with you on this and with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
I yield back.
Speaker 2
You'll yield to me. I just wanna before you yield back, I just wanna say, yes. We have worked together, and we'll continue to work together on this issue. And I'll yield back to you, and you yield back.
Speaker 2
The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 13
Thank you, chairman. I wanna express my support for the principles that animate the RESET Act in this amendment. 13, even if it were properly enforced, which it is not, is not the right age for internet adulthood. I think we've learned that over the last 20 years. And Jonathan Haidt and the anxious generation, I think, has mapped out the science and the data in compelling fashion about the deterioration of children's mental health, cognitive development, because of the Wild West online realm that these digital empires have exposed them to.
And so I support what the congresswoman from Indiana is trying to do, which is raise that to at least 16. I'm committed to working with her on that in a bipartisan fashion. And I would also invite members on both sides of this aisle. We've heard so many people speak eloquently, particularly our parents in this committee, about how frustrated we all are and how much we wanna use the power that we have on this committee to address these harms. I wanna invite those members on both sides of the aisle to come work with the congresswoman from Indiana and me.
We've got some momentum going. We got two bills that we've done already. We are working bipartisan. We are working in good faith. We are taking each other's feedback, and we want our group to get bigger.
So come, please work with us.
Speaker 15
Thank you. Thank you, representative. I wanna thank you for working with me on the bills that we've been able to work in a bipartisan fashion and also for your coleadership of the Kids Online Safety Caucus. I would be remiss if I didn't mention and encourage members on both sides of the aisle to join us in our efforts to work together to solve these issues. And I yield back to you.
Speaker 2
Will you yield back to me? This is someone from Massachusetts who yielded. I just wanna echo that we will continue to work together on this. No. No.
Gentlemen, so did you yell back? The gentleman from Massachusetts yielded back. Oh, so anyone on the re until I have Mister Bill and Bill Rock. Mister Bill Rocas is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 6
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. As a cosponsor of the RESET Act, I wanna echo the comments of Miss Houchin. I think it's common sense, folks. I think we've failed to remember that for the first several years, Facebook required college email to sign up.
So it was intended again, this was not intended for minors with regard to Facebook. And in they were effectively excluded from the site by the email domain requirement. Since the proliferation of social media among our youth, we've seen harm. I mean, we've seen harm grow. It's right there.
I mean, the evidence is there. And, you know, I wanna continue to work with the parents. And, again, our heart goes out to the parents, and I wanna continue. We didn't walk away from the negotiating table, by the way. That's a fact.
I wanna work with my Democratic colleagues. On this bill, this particular amendment, but the entire package, I wanna commend the staffs. They've been working for years to get this right, and I think we have a great bill here. But I wanna get back to Miss Houchin's bill or particular amendment that she is gonna withdraw. But I think it has to be said, our kids are plainly addicted.
Just like many of the adults here in this room, it's impacting their ability, our children to learn. At school, it's causing isolation and depression. It's stifling creativity. It's literally changing the neural connections of their brain, and even their physical growth and body posture. Now I've seen it with my kids as well.
Adults may be able to cope with this, but children cannot. They cannot. It's been proven. And the dangers only continue to grow. So I think the RESET Act, and again, it's an amendment, and I know the chairman will work with us on this, is a great marker to have as we confront some difficult questions about the future of our youth.
So we appreciate you very much, and I want the parents to know that if this bill passes out of full committee, we will work with you. We will work with you to find some consensus, in common ground before it gets to the floor. So thank you very much, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 2
Jim, and yells back that you're a recognized gentleman from New Jersey for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I heard mister Villaraca say that a gentlewoman from Indiana was gonna withdraw the amendment, but I haven't heard her say that. So maybe I can ask her if she intends to withdraw it. Otherwise, I'm gonna just keep talking here.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen from Virginia. Mister Griffith is recognized for five minutes this morning.
Speaker 34
I just wanna echo some of the comments in a bipartisan fashion that you've heard. I think 13 is too young. I think 16 is right. It's interesting they've referenced science. It's also true that the common law recognized a sliding scale for responsibility, that it, you know, a sliding scale roughly from 12 to about 16.
And so it's not just science. It's long experience over the centuries that tells us that 13 is too young, and that parents should be involved. And, I'll have to sit down and think about the concept maybe of going to 18, that my colleague mentioned. But 16 absolutely should be the minimum, and I would hope that we would move towards Miss Houchin's 16 number as we move forward and working on these concepts. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 33
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In Florida, we have this as the law of our state, and it's something that is bipartisan. When you look at all the complexities of the duty of care and preemption and all these other things we're gonna have to debate in this committee, one thing is actually pretty simple, which is that kids 16 should not have access to social media unless parents agree to allow them to do that. We should be protecting kids, empowering parents, and this is something where you could get a lot of bipartisan support. In Florida, you can't get a driver's license before 16.
It's a challenge to be able to work before 16. There are a lot of things on the way to adulthood we allow at 16. And so that's why I think very rarely do all the Florida Democrats, Republicans all agree on something, but I think we have broad support for this issue, and something I'd hope you'd seriously consider as we move through this, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from North Dakota is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 19
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you to my good friend, representative Houchin, and representative for leading on this issue. As a fellow mom of three, I couldn't agree more that the right age standard for using covered social media platforms should be 16. Here's why. At 13, kids are still learning how to navigate the world around them. At ages 13, 14, and 15, my kids were in junior high.
They were flooded with hormones, flooded with insecurities, trying to figure out friendships, and just trying to fit in. At age 13, kids are still kids. Their judgment, their resilience, and their understanding of long-term consequences are still developing. Yet today's social media platforms expose them to powerful algorithms designed to capture their attention, collect their personal data, and maximize their engagement. That is not a fair fight for a middle schooler.
The RESET Act simply restores common sense in nearly every other area of life. We recognize that minors need clear boundaries, especially when it comes to complex commercial interactions. We set age limits for driving, for contracts, for other activities where the risks are real, and online platforms are no different. This legislation draws a clear and forcible line. It prevents companies from exploiting a vulnerable age group, requires a shutdown of 16 accounts, and ensures that minors' personal data is deleted while giving families a short window to download their information.
Just as importantly, it establishes a clear national standard, so parents, kids, and companies all know the rules of the road. This isn't about keeping kids from technology. It's about giving them time to grow up before being thrown into a digital environment that robs them of their innocence and is dangerous to their well-being. I strongly support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same either today or down the road, as we work through these issues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
Speaker 2
Is there further discussion on this amendment? Seeing none, General Lady from Indiana is recognized.
Speaker 15
Mister chairman, I appreciate your willingness to work on this issue continuously. It is extremely important we don't allow this big loophole. I ask unanimous consent at this time to withdraw my amendment and look forward to continuing to work on the issue.
Speaker 2
That objection, the amendment is withdrawn. There are further amendments to the general. Lady from Florida is recognized. Or what purpose is a general lady from Florida to seek recognition?
Speaker 14
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 7757 offered by mistake.
Speaker 2
Point of order is reserved. A gentlelady from Florida is recognized for five minutes in support of her.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I get to the heart of my amendment, I have some good news out of the US Senate, and I wanna bring it up now because it gives us an opportunity later when we get to COPPA 2.0 to actually do something meaningful. The United States Senate has just passed COPPA 2.0, which is essentially the Castor Wahlberg version from the last Congress by unanimous consent this morning. So I highlight that because we could, when we get to that bill, reinstitute the bipartisan version and speed it on its way to passage. But this amendment, back to the KOSIN, the kids act, would close the loopholes that exist throughout the Republican bill that would allow big tech to continue to harm kids, their safety, and their privacy.
My amendment does two things. It strengthens the knowledge standard, and it clarifies the preemption language. A stronger knowledge standard will hold the tech companies accountable. Otherwise, companies claim ignorance. Right?
They argue that they cannot be held responsible because they don't know who is using their platforms or what is happening on them, even though we know this is false. An actual knowledge standard that is applied throughout the bill right now is a giant loophole because proving actual knowledge is an incredibly high bar for enforcers to meet. It allows the social media companies to continue. They look the other way when their platforms are harming kids, and they leave parents and regulators with the burden of proving the company's intentions in court. So my updated knowledge standard expands it to, they have to have actual knowledge or to have knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances.
We know based upon recent testimony and court cases brought by grieving parents that the companies are aware of their harmful content, yet they continue to try to hide behind these knowledge standards. Whistleblowers have corroborated these findings, showing that it is a deliberate choice to turn a blind eye to the foreseeable dangers. Families deserve assurance that companies like Meta cannot hide behind these no-knowledge standards. So what my amendment does, it closes this loophole throughout the entire package. We're gonna create a legal framework that applies comprehensively across all the provisions of the law.
It ensures that knowledge standards are applied consistently, and that platforms cannot pick and choose where they will act. This is a cohesive approach that is essential for the law to function effectively. It links legal duties, risk mitigation, and platform responsibility. Additionally, my amendment also addresses preemption because we do not want to leave any room for companies to undermine state-level protections or claims. This makes clear that the law's protective intent is uniform, it's enforceable, and not subject to contradictory interpretations that could weaken the safeguards for children.
Members, this amendment is kind of the heart of the difference. It is the giant loophole that tech companies will exploit. And I know you don't wanna be a party to that. I've heard you loud and clear that you are sincerely interested in making a difference and standing up to the tech companies. So this is the amendment to prove it, along with what we can do to get COPPA 2.0 back to the bipartisan version.
This is about accountability, consistency, and protection, but things you can say you believe in. But if you keep the version as it is now, you belie all of the intent. Frankly, it looks like Big Tex fingerprints are all over this bill. They figured out a clever way to veil this is a cleverly veiled way to gut stronger state protections under the guise of child safety, and we just shouldn't stand for it. We need to craft a strong law together, and we can do this.
We did it before, in the last congress. There's no reason why we should capitulate to the tech companies now. Let's stand up for kids. Let's reinsert the heart of the matter here by with a stronger preemption, stronger standard that they can't use as a shield in court. It's up to our responsibility that we have to kids and families, not the big tech companies.
They have too much power here. Let's show them today that we stand with the parents and families, and believe that we can make progress. Thank you. I urge you to vote yes on the Castro amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you. The general lady yields back. The general lady from Florida, Miss Kammock, is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 21
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I seek recognition to speak in opposition to this amendment. And I wanna thank my colleague from the Sunshine State for opening up and dovetailing this for me. She said that Big Tex's fingerprints are all over this bill. I find that to be a little bit hypocritical considering that the only proposal that was offered to this committee was actually written by Big Tech, and then they offered it.
But I can tell you whose fingerprints are all over this amendment. The trial attorneys. The trial attorneys wrote this amendment. See, this amendment introduces a vague constructive knowledge standard that will act as a blank check for regulatory abuse by an undoubtedly future weaponized FTC. How do I know that?
One, I served on the weaponization committee last Congress, and I witnessed an overreach that you cannot even begin to imagine. We saw Lena Khan, the Biden FTC chair, move without unduly burdening legitimate business activity from the commission's mission statement, fundamentally changing how they operate. That subsequently became a target for American businesses. So let's be clear. This is just a deliberate move to attack Main Street mom and pop businesses because we know in her tenure, Lina Khan, she started speculative lawsuits against otherwise law abiding companies, colluded with European regulators to undermine US businesses, committed ethics violations on cases she would have otherwise been forced to recuse herself from, and embraced algorithm discrimination theories to stretch consumer protection authorities beyond the law.
We cannot give this power to the next chair of the FTC, which we know will continue to be weaponized unless a departure is made. So the underlying bill already contains a strong, enforceable standard. Platforms are liable if they have actual knowledge or if they willfully disregard that a user is a minor. Additionally, this section's preemption provision is narrowly written to specifically preempt what the bill is regulating, and nothing more. A state still has the ability to enact laws and regulations that fall outside the specific issue that is being preempted, and this was confirmed with the states in question that have been mentioned here today.
Now further, I'm gonna read this out loud so everyone in the room can be on the same page here. Nothing in subsection a may be construed to preempt the applicability of any state law with respect to trespass, contract, tort, or product liability, any statutory law that creates a remedy or penalty for criminal conduct, or any law of general applicability of a state with respect to consumer protection. This rule of construction is incredibly explicit. It directly preserves the ability of a parent to access the courts and protects ongoing lawsuits against social media and online gaming companies. I started out my remarks talking about the fingerprints of the trial bar on this amendment.
You don't have to take my word for it, but we come with receipts. See, the very association that I just mentioned was in direct communication with the committee this week. This week. And.
Speaker 21
You don't believe that, then look no further than the talking points that they issued, that became the actual legislative text that has been offered here today. They don't want us to legislate. They think that congress needs to act to protect, they don't think that congress should protect kids. They've told us that much because that's what their talking points say. They want the ability to make money.
That's what this is about. With our language as written, we strike the balance of setting national safety standards and preserving a parent's ability to seek justice and hold Big Tech accountable. And I encourage all of my colleagues to reject this amendment, and vote yes on the underlying bill. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Speaker 2
General Adeyel's back. Further discussion of the amendment. Mister So from Florida is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 33
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, this amendment is really the whole ball game here. Right? We wanna protect our kids. We want parents who are here today deserve the truth.
And the truth is that this boat falls woefully short. It's actually pretty outrageous to weaken standards with a straight face in this committee today. We don't need to lock the courthouse doors or make justice next to impossible. I know a lot of these different standards are very confusing, especially to a lot of the parents, non-lawyers in the room, and so I wanted to take a few minutes to go over them. Two main points, it will be next to impossible for victims to prove actual knowledge in court, and preemption hurts stronger state laws.
And as an aside, there were prior bills that included both of these that we all voted for last year in the subcommittee, and, excuse me, last term in the subcommittee, and now they're gone. Right? So under this, you must show a social media site had actual knowledge of harm to kids rather than the proper standard, which is a duty of care. That means you have to show a social media site knew that their algorithm or other practice was very addictive to kids or that it was causing depression or that they facilitated drug dealing or sexual trafficking. The proper standard should be duty of care, because a jury would understand it's either knew or should have known that these practices were harming kids.
The victims would have to show a company specifically knew that algorithm or that practice causes harm. Find the smoking gun, which rarely occurs. Some smoking gun email or a study or other evidence that they knew specifically. As I could as an attorney, I could tell you this rarely ever happens. With the duty of care standard, juries can use common sense.
They can say, you know what? After thousands of kids have been hurt, perhaps they should've known that practice, that algorithm, that addicted part of it was harmful, and maybe they should have done something about it. If this becomes law, we may never see victims' families prevail in court again. We may see some of these court cases that are already there because we'd heard a discussion about it continue to move forward. But anyone going forward after this, it makes harder.
And I'm not here to demonize tech companies. I'm not here to demonize trialers, which, by the way, attorneys will be both defending all these families and also the companies. But if we make it harder with this bill, how could we, in good faith, support it? Briefly, on point two, preemption is tricky. States should have some discretion on greater protections.
We all talked about what we have in Florida. Social media ban for kids 16, where parents can opt out their kids if they'd like to. This law has bipartisan support in Florida and has been upheld by the courts, including the eleventh circuit. And so we wanna make sure we're getting these two areas right. That's why everybody came here today, to make sure we have justice.
And so not only do the major issues matter, but the details matter to make sure that the courthouse doors remain open, that we give victims some rights to be able to prosecute their cases, and to make sure that states have a role in this. And with that, that's why I think this is the amendment. This is the crossroads. This is where we all vote for it. You could see a bipartisan bill out today.
And if we don't, we still have a major divide that has to be bridged to get us back to the very bills we agreed on last term. And with that, I thank the general lady, my fellow Floridian, for filing this very good amendment and yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion of the amendment? Further discussion of the amendment on either side? Seeing none.
There's no further discussion. The vote occurs on the amendment. A roll call has been requested. If the roll call has been requested, the clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 14
Mister Lata? No. Mister Lata votes no. Mister Griffith? Mister Billaracas?
No. Mister Belaracus votes no. Mr. Hudson. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no.
Mr Palmer. Mr. Palmer votes no. Mr. Dunn. Mr. Crenshaw. Mr. Joyce.
Mister Joyce votes no. Mister Weber, Mister Weber votes no. Mister Allen, Mister Allen votes no. Mister Balderson votes no. Mr. Fulcher.
Mister Fulcher votes no. Mister Fluger. Mister Fluger votes no. Missus Harshbarger. Missus Harshparger votes no.
Missus Miller Meeks, Missus Miller Meeks votes no. Missus Kameck, Missus Kameck votes no. Mister Obernotti, mister Obernotti votes no. Mister James, Mister James votes no. Mister Bentz, Mister Bentz votes no.
Missus Houchin votes no. Mister Fry, Mister Fry votes no. Miss Lee, Miss Lee votes no. Mister Langworthy? Mister Langworthy votes no.
Mr Cain? Mr. Cain votes no. Mister Ruley? Mister Ruley votes no. Mister Evans?
Mister Evans votes no. Mister Goldman? Mister Goldman votes no. Missus Fedorchak? Missus Fedorchak votes no.
Mister Polon? Mister Polon votes aye. Miss Dugget? Aye. Miss Dugget votes aye.
Miss Shakowski? Aye. Miss Shukowski votes aye. Miss Matsui? Aye.
Miss Matsui votes aye. Miss Castor?
Speaker 14
Miss Castor votes aye. Mister Tonko? Aye. Mister Tonko votes aye. Miss Clark?
Aye. Miss Clark votes aye. Miss, mister Ruiz? Aye. Mister Ruiz votes aye.
Mister Peters? Mister Peters votes aye. Missus Dingle? Missus Dingle votes aye. Mister Visi?
Mister Visi votes aye. Miss Kelly? Miss Kelly votes aye. Miss Paragon? Miss Paragon votes aye.
Mister So? Mister So votes aye. Miss Schrier? Miss Schrier votes aye. Miss Treyhan?
Miss Treyhan votes aye. Miss Fletcher? Miss Fletcher votes aye. Miss Ocasio-Cortez? Miss Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
Mister Auclinclaus? Mister Aucinclaus votes aye. Mister Carter of Louisiana? Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez votes aye.
Mister Mullen? Mister Mullen votes aye. Mister Landman? Mr. Landman votes aye. Miss McCullen?
Miss McCullen votes aye. Guthrie? No. Chairman Guthrie votes no.
Speaker 2
Anyone else on the Republican side seeking to answer the role? Anyone on the Democratic side? The role is, so seeing none, the clerk will report. Oh.
Speaker 14
Mister chairman, on that vote, there were 20, excuse me, 24 ayes and 27 noes.
Speaker 2
The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments to the bill?
Speaker 2
Mister Lanzman, are you recognized? For what purpose do you seek recognition?
Speaker 14
Amendment to the amendment and the nature of a substitute to HR 7757 offered by mister Lansman.
Speaker 2
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman from Ohio is also at Kentucky. Ohio is recognized for five minutes before the amendment.
Speaker 26
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me, before I mention the amendment, I just wanna thank all the parents for being here. This isn't easy. I can't possibly imagine the grief and pain that you're going through and the amount of work that you put into it, and, I wish we had a better outcome today. This amendment would get us to a better outcome, but I just wanna say thank you for being here, and for working on this.
My wife, Sarah, and I have two kids. Our son, Elijah, is 14. Our daughter, Maddie, is 16. And a couple of weeks ago, it was a Saturday or Sunday, they were born and they wanted to go to a place called, Activate. And I didn't know what it was.
Looked it up. It's this in-person sort of gaming facility, interactive technology. It was a little expensive, but it was ninety minutes, and they really wanted to go, and they wanted their friends to go with them. And so I took a bunch of, you know, these 14, 15, 16 year old kids to this place. And as you know, when you get to a place like this, you have a lot of paperwork to fill out.
You know, they gotta know everyone's age. A lot of forms. Fill out all the forms. If something bad were to happen, god forbid, I could sue, activate. Pretty straightforward.
I didn't think twice about whether Ohio laws applied. I assume all the Ohio laws apply. And so I was thinking about that in the context of this bill and wondering why we treat big tech differently than we treat small businesses. Why would we treat big tech any differently than small businesses? So this amendment fixes the knowledge standard so that big tech has to actually have knowledge that there are young people, kids, on their platforms.
They can't deny it. Changes the duty of care so that we can litigate, so parents can take big tech, these platforms, to court. That's it. Yes. The lawyers have been involved.
The lawyers all around this country want to be able to help parents take these firms to court. And three, it deals with the issue of preemptions so that state laws prevail. Period. Not in some instances, but across the board. This amendment protects our kids, not big tech. So with that, I encourage all my colleagues to support the amendment.
I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen, yields back. The chair recognizes a gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilaraukas.
Speaker 6
Thank you very much. I seek regulation to speak, in opposition to the amendment. Okay. This amendment introduces a vague, constructive knowledge standard that will act as a blank check for regulatory abuse by future partisan FTC. And, you know, we see that in the last term.
A constructive knowledge standard based on what a regulator thinks is fairly implied based on objective circumstances as an invitation to play gotcha with otherwise law-abiding companies. So the underlying bill already contains a strong, enforceable standard. Platforms are liable if they have actual knowledge or if they willfully disregard that a user is a minor. So the underlying bill punishes bad actors who intentionally look away, without opening the door to federal overreach, in my opinion. This amendment also adds anti-preemption language that is directly from the Senate codes of bill.
The underlying preemption language already is, and I this is what it says, conflicts with preemption, which means that the only laws that are state laws, they in other words, if it's a state law that directly conflicts with the federal law, then that particular law will be preempted. The underlying bill has the same preemption language that the minority insisted on during negotiations, and I happen to agree with them. And now they are moving the goalposts. It's plain and simple. The constitution provides that federal laws can trump state laws, including laws that conflict with federal law, and adopting this upends constitutional responsibilities.
So it's pretty clear, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Yields back. Further discussion on the amendment? Gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 26
Thank you, Rob. The whole thing comes down to whether or not you can sue these companies. I mean, there's only, you know, so much that, you know, policy can achieve. You know, obviously, as lawmakers, we hope that our policy is spot on, and it's foolproof, and it covers all eventualities. But that's not the way it works.
Typically, you know, we get justice, and things get fixed because people can take somebody to court. That's it. And there are two big groups in this country that have protections, that have these litigation shields, even though they've caused enormous damage to our children: big tech and gun manufacturers. Mhmm. Why can't I sue either one of them?
I just don't understand. I really don't other than the money. Anyway, I'd pass this amendment. Help these families sue these big tech companies, and that that's gonna lead to the change. Congressman, I don't know if I can yield.
I mean, back to Mister Menendez, and then.
Speaker 13
Would you mind yielding for just I want to add to the congressman from Ohio's point about the two industries that can't be sued. Just the third one, which is the drug pricing middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers. Three industries have come to congress in the last 25 years and asked to be held harmless. Gun manufacturers, social media corporations, and the big insurance corporations that rent-seek off of high drug prices. If that's not a lesson for us in Congress, I don't know what is.
Maybe we should stop doing that. And when industries come to Congress and say, hey. Don't want to be sued. Our answer shouldn't be sure. How can we help?
Our answer should be, like, well, what are you doing that people keep suing you so much? And maybe work on that for a while. I yield back.
Speaker 2
I don't think it's a gentleman from New Jersey's time. So do you yield to?
Speaker 29
Thank you. I just wanna really quickly point out, I think it's the height of insanity to say to companies that develop platforms and services and algorithms that are addictive to children, that are intentionally addictive to children, that there's evidence that they're addictive to children, to now say that they should not be held to a standard, that they should reasonably know that children will be addicted to the services and platforms and products that they intended for them to become addicted to and will continue to use them, and therefore should be shielded with an actual knowledge standard. To me, that is the height of insanity. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Oh, we just started over. I think there were two minutes left. We'll give you two minutes. So, yeah, go ahead. I think you recognize it.
Speaker 12
I think the gentleman is, and I'm happy to yield back my time as well. But, you.
Speaker 12
So, what is kind of being revealed here, and what all the points that we're making here is that this is about how Congress and Congress' willingness to take on big industries and some of the biggest and most nefarious industries that have preyed on the American people. And everyday working families, they don't have big money lobbyists. But big social media companies too. Big tech does. Big pharma does.
Big oil does. And big tobacco does. And big tobacco was one of.
Speaker 12
First, mega predatory industries that wrote the playbook on how to dupe Congress and to also perpetuate PR campaigns to actually trick the American people as well. I mean, we all can remember times, and it's in our history books. That big tobacco had originally convinced the American people that smoking cigarettes was healthy for you. They suppressed science. They suppressed evidence, and then they lobbied Congress to prevent any sort of regulation.
And millions of Americans were diagnosed with cancer and got sick, and we found out decades after the fact how dangerous this was. Big Oil did the same thing when we found out that burning fossil fuels contributed to carbon emissions back in the 1970s. Exxon's internal scientists determined this, and then they set out to bury that science and evidence. We're seeing this with opioids and opioid manufacturers that preyed on the American people, understanding and knowing how addictive their substances was. And now we're seeing this with social media and big tech.
We're seeing the crisis that's happening here with kids losing their lives and people losing cognitive function increasingly in use of social media tools and other digital tools as well. So we have to stand up and say we see right through them and that we're willing to stand up to big money behind this as well, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you. Gentlemen from New Jersey, exhausted all your time. So, gentleman yields back. So, thank you. Like any further discussion?
Seeing none, if there's no further discussion, the vote will occur on the amendment. A roll call has been requested, and the clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 14
Mister Lara, mister Griffith, mister Billeracas, mister Hudson, mister Cardo Georgia. Mister Cardo, Georgia votes no. Mister Palmer, mister Dunn, mister Crenshaw, mister Joyce? Mister Joyce votes no. Mister Weber?
Mister Weber votes no. Mister Allen? Mr. Allen votes no. Mister Balderson? Mister Balderson votes no.
Mr. Fulcher? Mister Fulcher votes no. Mister Fluger? Mister Pfluger votes no. Missus Harshbarger?
Missus Harshbarger votes no. Missus Miller Meeks? Missus Miller-Meeks votes no. Missus Kameck? Missus Kameck votes no.
Mister Obernotti? Mister Obernotti votes no. Mr James? Mister James votes no. Mr Bentz?
Mister Bentz votes no. Missus Houchin? Missus Houchin votes no. Mr Fry? Mister Fry votes no.
Miss Lee? Miss Lee votes no. Mister Langworthy? No. Mister Langworthy votes no.
Mr. Cain? Mr. Cain votes no. Mister Ruley? Mister Rule? Mister Rule votes no.
Mister Evans? Mister Goldman? Mister Goldman votes no. Missus Fedorchak? No.
Missus Fedorchak votes no. Mister Pelon? Aye. Mister Pelon votes aye. Miss Diguet?
Aye. Miss Diguet votes aye. Miss Shakowski? Aye. Miss Shakowski votes aye.
Miss Matsowie? Aye. Miss Matsowie votes aye. Miss Castor? Yes.
Miss Castor votes aye. Mister Tonko? Aye. Mister Tonko votes aye. Miss Clark?
Miss Clark? Miss Clark votes aye. Mister Ruiz? Mister Ruiz votes aye. Mister Peters?
Mister Peters votes aye. Missus Dingle? Missus Dingle votes aye. Mister Visi? Mister Visi votes aye.
Miss Kelly? Miss Kelly votes aye. Miss Paragon? Miss Paragon votes aye. Mister So?
Mister So votes aye. Miss Schreyer? Miss Schreyer votes aye. Miss Treyhan? Miss Treyhan votes aye.
Miss Fletcher? Miss Fletcher votes aye. Miss Ocasio-Cortez? Miss Ocasio-Cortez votes aye. Mister Acasio Cortez?
Mister Achenclaus votes aye. Mister Carter of Louisiana? Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez votes aye.
Mister Mullen? Mister Mullen votes aye. Mister Lansman? Mister Lansman votes aye. Miss McCullin?
Miss McCullin votes aye. Chairman Guthrie? No. Chairman Guthrie votes no. Mister Latter is not recorded.
No. Mister Latter votes no.
Speaker 14
Hudson votes no. Mr Palmer? Mister Palmer is not recorded. Nick, is Mr. Palmer votes no.
Speaker 2
Anyone seeking to answer the roll call? Seeing none. The clerk will report.
Speaker 2
Amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? The gentleman from Florida, what is the purpose of recognition? For an amendment. You identify your amendment?
Speaker 2
Without objection, right amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman from Florida is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
Speaker 33
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We had a deal on the Safer Gaming Act in the subcommittee. I filed an amendment that was agreed to at the time. The Safer Gaming Act amendment created parental controls for the chat features on online interactive video games. Kids under 16 would be opted into the most protective level of communication safeguards by default.
The default restrictive safeguards can only be changed by a parent. We see especially a lot of our boys and young men playing games, and, yes, some of the ladies too. And we know this is an area where they're vulnerable. Now that the deal has been broken. In this current version, that amendment was taken out.
Just a little more background. Our amendment made improvements to the state preemption language in the original bill, with the intention to continue negotiations to further improve the language. The majority made the preemption language worse when they rolled safer gaming into the kids' package. Our amendment strikes that state preemption language and replaces that standard with a standard that protects and sets it as a floor, rather than a ceiling. I do wanna thank Mister Keen for working with me in the subcommittee on this, and I'm hoping we can keep the deal and pass this amendment.
Need to yield back.
Speaker 2
Jim O'Neill's back. The gentlelady from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes. Speak on the amendment.
Speaker 21
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I'm speaking in opposition to this amendment, and I do wanna thank my, it's the Floridians, man. We're all over the place. Representative, so I appreciate all the work that you and I do together. In fact, most of the work on this committee tends to be bipartisan.
But I am absolutely struck by the fact that this amendment, the previous amendment, and subsequent amendments that are slated are quite literally identical. The language is identical to the word. I just have to point that out because we keep doing this round robin. And, I mean, you can pull every single one of these amendments, and there is not even a deviation of a single word. They all say the exact same thing.
And, again, I believe everyone on this side, everyone, Republicans and Democrats, are looking for the same thing. We want to empower parents. We wanna keep kids safe. I am the new mom to a little girl who is 6 months old, and I am terrified for her future. I am terrified of what she is going to encounter.
But going about it where special interest is trying to influence these outcomes is ridiculous. I can speak to the fact that, representative Treyhan, representative So to and I, we are squarely in the crosshairs of big tech because we are willing to take on that fight. This is such a personal issue to so many, including people in our audience. But who else is in the audience? Trial attorneys.
You know who you are. You know who you are in this audience. Don't for one second think that you are not going to skate by without being pointed out that you make money off of these lawsuits and that you didn't draft these amendments. And the talking points are quite literally what we're hearing from the other side. This should be about how do we advance this?
How do we advance this to make it safe for kids and empower parents? All I'm hearing is the same amendment over and over, which has been drafted by the trial attorneys. And it seems like it's just not productive. So I think, of course, we will see our colleagues continue to offer these. It's the same language over and over again, and it will have the same result.
I personally would love for us to advance this bill, so we can actually begin the hard work of protecting kids and empowering parents. And I love that the trial attorney, there are some trial attorneys that are shaking their heads. But.
Speaker 2
Gentle lady yields back. The gentle lady from California whose Boston is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 31
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just feel the need to respond to the attack on trial lawyers. I have to say I was never a trial lawyer. I couldn't afford it, because I had too much debt when I came out of law school. But I see trial lawyers as those fighting for the little people, especially when Congress won't do its job to fight for the little people.
So to come out here and attack trial lawyers, basically, lawyers who are willing to represent parents and children against big corporations is quite fascinating, but quite sad as well. Lawyers play a vital role in this country to fight for people, and many times, it's the little person, the person who can't afford a lawyer. And so, I don't know what the congresswoman's constituents do when they can't afford a lawyer, and some corporation has done some wrong. I have no idea who they go to, but those are plaintiffs, trial lawyers. So, I just find it quite disturbing that a member of Congress would attack those that are fighting for the little people and those that are fighting, in this instance today, for parents and for kids.
Speaker 18
In lady yield? Yes. Thank you. I and in addition to my friend, the reason why you keep hearing the same language from us is because it's the law. It's the Supreme Court decisions.
It's the way that the law is interpreted. And what we're worried about is the language of this bill will allow these companies to circumvent the ability of, as Miss Baragon says, of the little guy, of the parents of these kids to be able to file and pursue lawsuits. And, you know, sorry that we keep talking about the law, but it's the law. And that's why we're talking about it. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Lady yields back. Is there any discussion on the Republican? The only lady from Texas, Miss Fletcher, is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 25
Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, I appreciate the comments from my fellow lawyers on the panel, and they stepped in to say some of the things that I wanted to say when I initially raised my hand. But I do think it's a point that we need to remember in this committee because, you know, Miss Kimmick was asking the questions about, you know, why are the trial lawyers so involved? And I think it's really important for us to remember that in our system, we can either regulate everything or we can regulate nothing, and try everything and have liability in the courts.
But we have a hybrid system where we try to regulate, but the message from the Republicans is we want fewer regulations. We don't want government regulating. So the lawyers step in to say, these things are causing harm. Right? Whether you're looking at train accidents a hundred years ago, we all had to read that case in law school, you know, people getting hit by trains and on to require safety.
That's something we do on this committee. Consumer protection, consumer product safety. So many of the things that we've learned are harmful to people in this country. We've learned not because we've regulated it first, but because citizens have been injured, have been hurt, and lawyers have come along, and those cases get tried in court. And so we have this hybrid system.
There are roles for regulation here, but what I hear over and over from the other side is less regulation. Okay. Well, then there should be more lawyers. Like, that's the answer to less regulation: we wanna protect citizens. We wanna protect consumers.
We want to have some way to address the harms happening in this country. And so we do both. Right? And the thing is I totally agree with congresswoman Baragon that, you know, what you see, there are a bunch of different kinds of ways to practice law and to be a lawyer. But there are a lot of lawyers who raise their hands to help people who cannot afford to pay them.
Right? People who have been injured. But, you know, in my law firm where I used to work, the lawyers charge a thousand dollars an hour. I don't know how ordinary people can pay for that when they've been harmed. And so you need to have people who are willing to take the risk and represent people for free for years, sometimes at a time.
And then eventually, they do get paid unless they don't win, and then they often don't get paid anything. So as we're criticizing these people, we need to, well, I'm not criticizing. As criticisms are being lodged against the trial lawyers, I just think it's really important to understand the fundamental system that we're operating in, and the important role of lawyers in our society. And, look, I'm on a roll, so I'm just gonna say this too. We need lawyers now more than ever because what we are seeing happening in this country every single day is an outright assault on the constitution of the United States of America by the president of the United States in this cabinet that is acting lawlessly and without authority.
We're about to go to the floor and vote on a war powers resolution. But every single day, we see the president ignoring the congress, the administration ignoring the congress, ignoring laws that have been set in place, and this congress doing nothing about it. We're going to the floor to vote on showerheads and toilet capacity and all of these ridiculous rollbacks of appliance standards that come out of this committee. Instead of talking about the fact that agents of the United States government acting in our names and with taxpayer dollars are killing American citizens in the streets. You're laughing.
You're looking at me. You're smiling. You think it's ridiculous. People are being killed in the United States of America, and they're being killed by agents of our government, and we have not talked about it on the house floor. What is wrong with this Congress?
Why doesn't anyone want to talk about that? There is an incredible amount of lawlessness that is happening right now. And speaker Johnson says, we're not going to require ICE to follow the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. We're not gonna require warrants to enter your home, to seize your car. Right?
This is the constitution of the United States. This is the law, and it is being ignored by this administration and by this Congress. And so we need lawyers today, now more than ever. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen, lady yields back. The chair recognizes Mr. Weber from Texas for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 32
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, to Lizzie Fletcher from Houston, I wanna say thank you for being very passionate about this. Earth to Lizzie, I thank you for being very passionate about this. I have a son that's the plaintiff's attorney. We have one in the room here that I served with in Texas, mister Craig Island.
Thanks for being here, mister Island. And I was concerned about this bill when we started because I didn't wanna see it take a cause of action away when we started. They assured me it would not. And so, you make a good case in some fashion, but I think you got a little broad there, lady. But listen.
I appreciate your consideration. I appreciate your passion. And I wanna just say that we do need to be able to have causes of action and people that are going to be hurt. This is what lawyers do. I have a son that's one if I didn't mention that.
Just kidding. Anyway, I appreciate you, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen, yields back. Further discussion, mister Carter from Louisiana had you recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 27
Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I listened to my colleague from Florida demonize trial lawyers, demonize advocates, demonize people who step up and stand up to defend people against big tech, against big organizations and corporate entities who have unlimited resources. But somehow, you find a way to demonize the defense. Those who stand up to advocate for trial lawyers go to court to defend people's rights, to address issues that they have been harmed by.
What's wrong with that? Are you suggesting that somehow they should singularly go against big tech by themselves and be further harmed by the giants that seem to fuel your argument to suggest that members on this side can't draft an amendment that someone else has to do it for them? That's disrespectful. It's disingenuous. It's dangerous.
It's reckless. It's an insult to the men and women sitting in this audience who are in pain, who are grieved because of their losses. And now you suggest that they should not have a lawyer to defend them. You suggest that somehow their concerns are not meritorious of proper counsel. Find another argument.
Find another argument to support the reckless nature of the exclusions, of solid solutions, the exclusions of the voices of the people that have been harmed. Let's not play politics with this. Let's not make this an argument against trial lawyers or this one or that one. Let's stay focused on what this is about. It's about our young people.
This is about big tech who want to take advantage of our young people. Let's not cloud the issue with arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter at hand. Please, let's stay focused. Let's stay in check. Let's get our minds right on why we are here.
Look at these people in the audience. Look at the pain on their faces. Let's come together, as I believe. I really believe both sides want to do. But somewhere along the line, you've lost your way, and now you attempt to defend that departure from truth and justice by trying to malign trial lawyers.
Give me a break. People are smarter than this, and the public deserves better. I yield.
Speaker 2
Gentleman yields back if there's no further discussion or if there is further discussion. Gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.
Speaker 22
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to correct the record. The amendment that was offered by the gentleman from Florida does not actually reflect our bipartisan work on the Safer Gaming Act. In fact, it changes both the preemption and the knowledge standard. I continue being happy and willing to work with the gentleman from Florida on future amendments to this particular provision of the bill.
Thank you again for, you're back.
Speaker 2
Jim and Yields back. If there's no further discussion. Jill Eddie from Florida. Every Floridian's gonna speak today. Right?
Does
Speaker 9
We enforce meaningful loss right now? So we've known about the growing harm to kids for many years. We've had so many hearings. We've drafted legislation. The congress has not enacted any of these laws.
I mean, it was COPPA, was adopted 25, 26 years ago, and we haven't really done much since then. So families can't count on the congress, and it sounds like today that the house republican leadership, they're not willing to get back to the bipartisan bills, but we're gonna keep trying there. At the same time, you know, the Federal Trade Commission has important enforcement responsibilities, but they have been under attack. So the FTC enforcement of laws will be less dependable. So you won't be able to, parents won't be able to depend on that.
So they rely on state laws because, thankfully, many states have acted on age-appropriate design codes and going after privacy violations. But what you're gonna do here is you're gonna make it harder for states to take the lead. You're gonna slam the courthouse door shut when they have certain state private rights of action in a lot of cases. So now you you're gonna defend slamming that door to the courthouse shut for families here too. So there's not gonna be any recourse anywhere.
They can't rely on the Congress. You don't want the states to be able to do anything. You don't want the FTC to be able to do anything. You don't want them to be able to bring private rights of action. This is kind of what Miss Ocasio Cortez said at the very beginning.
This is one of the most cynical ways that Washington operates, or what, mister Auckinclaw said. This is kind of the meta markup. This is what they want. There are a lot of very important lawsuits going on right now by school districts, by states, not just by families. And you're gonna pull the rug out from under them, understanding the harm.
So you give lip service. We feel your pain. We feel your pain. We wanna do something. And then you end the ability of anyone to seek justice in America.
So I think this argument has kind of shined a light on what this is all about here today. This is a protection of the social media platform's profits. You value the profits of those companies more than the recourse for families or doing something to protect kids, their safety, and their privacy. That's you made it plain. I yield back my time.
Speaker 2
Gentleladies, if yields back any further discussion, I'll just recognize myself for five minutes, on the amendment. Remember the amendment that, well, I probably have already spoken on. I'm sorry. Would a gentleman from Georgia see, do you reckon, fight back too?
Speaker 2
You, I was just gonna do a 30. I just wanna read that it says, every preemption section in the entire bill, quote, from the bill. Not from the amendment. So I know we were talking about the bill earlier. Nothing in subsection a may be construed to preempt the applicability of any law of a state with respect to trespass, contract, tort, or product liability, any statutory law that creates a remedy or penalty for criminal conduct, or any law of general applicability of a state with respect to consumer protection. I Mike State's involved in the Roblox lawsuit.
I talked to our attorney generals or we talked to the attorney general's office today. I didn't personally correct that. And they said this does not enhance or inhibit them from going forward. So I will yield back as there is further discussion or the gentleman from Ohio yells back. Is there any further discussion?
Seeing none. Then there's no further discussion. The vote occurs on the amendment. The nature, well, not for the amendment, a roll call has been requested, and the clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 14
Mr Lotta. No. Mister Lotta votes no. Mister Griffith? Mister Billerakis?
Mister Billerakis votes no. Mister Hudson? Mister Hudson votes no. Mister Carter, Georgia. Mr Palmer.
Mister Palmer votes no. Mr. Dunn. Mr. Crenshaw. Mr. Joyce. Mister Joyce votes no.
Mr. Weber. Mister Weber votes no. Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen votes no. Mr. Balderson.
Mister Balderson votes no. Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Fulcher votes no. Mr. Fluker. Mr. Fluker votes no.
Missus Harshbarger. Missus Harshbarger votes no. Missus Miller Meeks. Missus Kameck. Missus Kameck votes no.
Mister Oppenulti. Mr. James. Mister James votes no. Mr Bentz? Mister Bentz votes no.
Missus Houchin? No. Missus Houchin votes no. Mr Fry? Mister Fry votes no.
Miss Lee? Miss Lee votes no. Mister Langworthy? No. Mister Langworthy votes no.
Mister Cain? Mr. Cain votes no. Mister Ruley? No. Mister Ruley votes no.
Mister Evans? Mister Goldman? Mister Goldman votes no. Missus Fedorchak? Mrs.
Fedorchak votes no. Mr. Pologne ? Mr. Pologne votes, aye.
Mr. Ghett? Aye. Mr. Ghett votes, aye.
Ms. Shakowski? Aye. Ms. Shakowski, aye.
Miss Matt Swee. Aye. Miss Matt Swee votes aye. Miss Castor? Aye.
Miss Castor votes aye. Mister Tonko? Aye. Mister Tonko votes aye. Miss Clark?
Aye. Miss Clark votes aye. Mister Ruiz? Mister Peters? Mister Peters votes aye.
Missus Dingle? Missus Dingle votes aye. Mister Visi? Mister Visi votes aye. Miss Kelly?
Miss Kelly votes aye. Miss Paragon? Miss Paragon votes aye. Mister So? Mister So votes aye.
Miss Schrier? Miss Schrier votes aye. Miss Treyhan? Miss Treyhan votes aye. Miss Fletcher?
Miss Fletcher votes aye. Miss Ocasio-Cortez? Miss Ocasio-Cortez votes aye. Mister Auclincaus? Aye.
Mister Aucinclaus votes aye. Mister Landsman votes I. Missus McCollin, Missus McCollin votes I. Chairman Guthrie? Chairman Guthrie votes no.
Speaker 2
Is anybody overnight who's first? Let me go. Well, I wanna so mister, how's mister Carter recorded?
Speaker 2
No snow. Mr. Dunn is here. I think some of us have heard that he was really sick the last few days. Actually, I got a phone call wondering if he was still here. And, we're pleased to say that he's got the treatment that he needs, and we expect to see him for the rest of the year.
So thank you, welcome back.
Speaker 2
Dunn. This is a Dun. And I just wanna, I don't wanna cause any conspiracy, but you're not your brother. Correct? He has an identical brother whom I met.
Speaker 2
The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? Gentle lady from California, what purpose do you seek recognition for?
Speaker 14
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 7757 offered by Miss Massoui of California. Page five, beginning on line seven. Strike two have acted in willful disregard. Okay.
Speaker 2
It is. Excuse me. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is disposed of, and the gentlelady from California is recognized for five minutes in support of her amendment.
Speaker 37
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. But first of all, I wanna thank the parents for being here on behalf of the children, and I know the children of others too who have been hurt. And I just want you to know that, the reason we wanna improve this bill is for all of you. We keep you at the very center because you are here. We see you, and we know what you're going through, and we wanna make sure that others do not have to go through what you've been through.
So thank you very much for being patient and for being here. Thank you. This amendment does two common-sense things to strengthen the kids act. First, it fixes the bill's weak knowledge standard, so companies can't dodge responsibility by claiming they didn't know the user was a child. Second, it fixes the safe bots' preemption language to clearly set a federal floor, not a ceiling, especially as AI companion chat boxes become more commonplace.
Let me be blunt. Instead of doing the hard work to reach real bipartisan agreement, Republicans keep rushing weak standards and broad preemption through committees, and kids are the ones who pay the price. Let's start with a knowledge standard. The bill currently tells companies to do the bare minimum on kids' safety. Profit from hooking kids on your app, and when harm occurs, just say you didn't know you were dealing with a child.
As written, the bill would make it nearly impossible for parents and kids to hold the company accountable. Instead of asking what the company reasonably should have known, the law would force families to prove what the company actually knew, using confusing and slippery standards. And the army of lawyers employed by corporations would do everything they can to exploit that loophole to avoid accountability. Platforms can't have it both ways. They collect mountains of data to predict what you'll watch next, and how to keep you on the app longer.
That same data gives them clear signals about age. If they're using data to make money off young users, they should also be required to use it to create meaningful protections for young users. My amendment strengthens this bill by moving us away from loopholes and toward real, enforceable protections for children. Now let me turn to safe thoughts and preemption. If we're serious about protecting kids online, we can't tie the hands of states and local communities.
Our federal system is designed so states can serve as laboratories of democracy, especially when new risks emerge faster than Congress can act. And nothing is moving faster right now than AI. We are entering a new era of AI companion chatbots that kids can access in seconds, often with few safeguards. States like California are already doing more than safe bets. California's SB 243 covers the same ground and goes further with a private right of action, so families aren't left powerless.
As written, safe bots would preempt states, block these and future stronger protections for kids. My amendment makes it clear this should be the federal floor for safety. States should be free to do more when emerging harms show up in their communities, and corporations fail to act responsibly. Right now, in California, landmark cases could finally reveal what these companies knew about the damage their platforms were doing to kids. How, instead of fixing it, they doubled down on designs that keep kids scrolling and coming back for more.
We shouldn't hand out the biggest tech platforms a get out jail free card, right as accountability is finally coming into view. We need to be honest about what the future looks like. The harms keep evolving. Just look at AI toys embedded with companion chatbots being marketed to children with little to no safeguards. Congress has been far too slow to respond to kids' safety in the social media era.
Now we're entering a new era with AI layered on top of it. That's why broad preemption is so dangerous. If we block states from acting, who knows how long it'll take Congress to catch up to the next wave of harms. So I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. Let's pass stronger protections for kids, not weaker accountability for big tech.
Let's set a federal floor, not a federal ceiling, and let's keep the states in the fight for kids. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 4
The general lady yields back the balance of time. Is there further discussion? For what purpose does the general lady from Tennessee's 1st District seek recognition?
Speaker 10
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I seek recognition to speak in opposition to the amendment. This amendment.
Speaker 4
The general lady recognized five minutes to speak in opposition to the amendment. Okay.
Speaker 10
Thank you, sir. This amendment does exactly the same thing that Mister Lansman's amendment does, in a different section. And, you know, the underlying bill already contains a strong, enforceable standard. And, again, it's the same preemption language that the minority agreed to in the past. But why don't we talk about the policy in the Kids Act?
Should kids be misguided in thinking that the chat box they're talking to is a real person? Should they? No. How about if a 12-year-old is able to receive a private message from a stranger? Is that okay?
No. It's not okay. Should big tech be conducting market research on sixth graders? No. And again, it's because the Trial Lawyer Association opposes the bill.
To be clear, the preemption standards in place are even weaker than those for motor vehicle ads. When you're going down the highway, there's no lack of signs for trial lawyers on the side of the highway. Have you been in an accident? We've all seen them. You know, it's ridiculous that the colleagues on the other side are voting against this package.
They're pretending it's for parents, but really it's because they wanted to delay any legislation that goes against big tech at the expense of your and my children. It's not right. And if you go back to Chairman Guthrie's amendment, all of the product liability and tort lawsuits will still be considered in court. So with that, I vote I'm gonna be voting no on the amendment, and I ask my colleagues to do the same. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 4
The gentleman yields back. Is there a further discussion throughout the first? Is the gentleman from New Jersey seeking recognition?
Speaker 28
I think it's absurd to say that our opposition to this package is because we want to delay any legislation that takes on big tech. You wanna take on big tech? Do more than what is in this proposed bill. Stand taller. Fight harder for families.
Have a duty of care standard. Don't weaken it. You say you wanna fight, fight harder. Fight harder for these families right here. They're looking at you.
They've been here all day. Don't tell us we don't want to take on big tech. I won't be lectured by a republican majority, then the one big beautiful bill wants to have a ten year moratorium on AI state legislation without doing anything here at the federal level. Don't lecture us that we don't want to pick on big tech. It's absurd.
We're here. We're ready. Look at what our colleagues have said during the entire hearing. We're ready to do the work. We'll join you hand in hand on meaningful, real legislation that we've been able to do on a bipartisan basis previously.
So we're here, and we've shown time and again we will operate in good faith. We tried on this bill. We tried on other bills, but you walk away from that bipartisanship to push this forward. And there's no way to say that the things that we support wouldn't be a harder sell to Big Tech. It wouldn't go harder against Big Tech.
That's what we want to do. We're on the side of the American people. You guys are on the side of corporate interests. How do you hold that?
Speaker 4
Gentlemen, you're back at balance time. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? The gentleman, for what purposes? Gentlemen from New York seek recognition.
Speaker 1
Like my colleagues before me, I want to acknowledge the families here today and those that have come to my office to share their stories. Your pain and loss are impossible to ever fully comprehend, and your tragic experience should compel us to promote the strongest effort that we can, and that being the bipartisan bill mentioned earlier here today, done in a previous time in this committee. That would be showing the fullest respect and the fullest response to this issue. And I apologize that we're failing you, that the burden to advocate year after year has fallen on you. I oppose this measure as it's currently presented, and primarily because of concerns of preemption and the duty of care.
The risk of social media continues to grow more urgent by the day, but we have failed to meet the moment. In fact, it's done the opposite. Instead of leading, this administration and my Republican colleagues are bowing to please big tech to enact weak policy that will preempt stronger state efforts. In my home state of New York, lawmakers have introduced and passed bills that recognize the urgent threat of unregulated social media. These actions include taking on companies that are designing for addiction, that are collecting and selling data of children and adults.
And state action is not a roadblock to progress. It is actually the driver of progress. That's how we got clean air laws, privacy protection, and civil rights. So strong regulation is not about stifling competition. It is about safeguarding communities from harms that the families in the audience today have shared over during the past few years.
The time has come to do the most appropriate moral response, and that is to get that bipartisan bill back into the committee. And with that, mister chair, I.
Speaker 4
Thank you very much, gentlemen. You was back balance time. What for what purposes? The general lady from Iowa's first district seat recognition.
Speaker 4
The general lady is recognized for five minutes. Speak to the amendment.
Speaker 39
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I think it's interesting as we go through this and we look at all of the bills that are compiled today in the kids act, and we look at the faces here at this hearing that we're going to have had four years of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle could have advanced legislation to their liking, but yet nothing has been done. And we've continued to see through COVID, children suffering, children being preyed upon on social media. It's why it was so important for me, even though I don't have young kids at home, but have family members with young children, seeing them go through this, trying to protect their children against behemoths that I introduced the Spy Kids Act. Protecting children and teens online is one of the most urgent responsibilities we face as policymakers.
Parents can't do this alone. You can't. No matter how involved you are, no matter how attentive you are, you cannot do it alone. As digital platforms become central to how young people learn, communicate, and navigate the world, most importantly, they trust them. We must ensure that these spaces are safe, transparent, and designed with their well-being, not corporate profit, as the driving priority.
My bill, the Spy Kids Act, included in title two of the Kids Act, takes an important step toward that goal by prohibiting online platforms from conducting market or focus, product-focused research on children 13 and be by requiring verifiable parental consent before such research can be conducted on teenagers. This bill applies to user-generated content platforms that use engagement-driven design features and personal data to tailor ads or recommendations, such as social media companies and social gaming platforms. Prior to coming to congress, I saw members of congress debate more on colored cereal and the effect on children than the effect of social media, which may end a child's life. Colored and flavored cereal never caused a child to commit suicide. By limiting how platforms can analyze and monetize minors' data, the Spy Kids Act helps reduce the risk of manipulative marketing practices, strengthens privacy protections, and reinforces the principle that the well-being of America's youth must come before the business models of technology companies.
Our goal is simple, to build an online ecosystem where children can grow, learn, and connect without being exploited in the process. With that, mister chair, I yield.
Speaker 4
Thank you. The gentleman yields back. For what purposes does the gentleman from California seek recognition?
Speaker 4
The gentleman that is recognized for five minutes to strike the last word.
Speaker 31
I just have to keep correcting the record when my colleagues across the aisle misguide and provide misinformation. Democrats did work in a bipartisan manner in 2024 on a pack on a kids' online safety bill, and the Senate passed it overwhelmingly 91 to 3. So to suggest that we have not discussed this issue and nothing has been done in four years is not true. And this committee again voted by voice vote to pass the legislation. One of the problems with this package is it adds all these other things.
Maybe to get the votes from Republicans who maybe would not vote for it, I don't know. And some of those bills are probably good bills, but when you package those with a bill that was bipartisan, that's been gutted, that takes away protections for parents and kids, we can't support it. So I would just recommend that you take out those bills, and we vote on those bills separately, and go back to the drawing board on the kids' online safety bill. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 4
Thank you very much, gentlemen. He yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? The roll call is, ask, and the clerk will call, take the roll, please.
Speaker 14
Mister Lada. No. Mister Lada votes no. Mister Griffith? Mister Belaracus.
Mister Belaracus votes no. Mr. Hudson. Mr. Hudson votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no.
Speaker 14
Palmer? Mr Palmer votes no. Mister Dunn? Mr. Dunn votes no. Mister Crenshaw?
Mr. Joyce. Mister Joyce votes no. Mister Weber. Mister Weber votes no. Mr. Allen.
Mr. Allen votes no. Mr Balderson. Mister Balderson votes no. Mister Folter, Mister Folter votes no. Mister Fluger, missus Harshbarger, missus Harshbarger votes no.
Missus Miller Meeks? Missus Miller-Meeks votes no. Missus Kamick? Missus Kamick votes no. Mister Obernotti?
Mister Obernotti votes no. Mr James? Mister Bentz? Mister Bentz votes no. Missus Houchin?
Missus Houchin votes no. Mr Fry? Mister Fry votes no. Miss Lee? Miss Lee votes no.
Mister Langworthy? No. Mister Langworthy votes no. Mr. Cain? Mister Cain votes no.
Mister Ruley? Mister Ruley votes no. Mister Evans? No. Mister Evans votes no.
Mr Goldman? Mister Goldman votes no. Missus Fedorchak. Missus Fedorchak votes no. Mister Palon.
Mister Palon votes aye. Miss Tiguet. Hi. Miss Tiguet votes aye. Miss Shukowski?
Speaker 14
Shukowski votes aye. Miss Matsowie? Aye. Miss Matsowie votes aye. Miss Castor?
Aye. Miss Castor votes aye. Mister Tonko. Aye. Mister Tonko votes aye.
Miss Clark? Miss Clark votes aye. Mister Ruiz? Mr. Ruiz votes aye. Mister Peters?
Mr. Peters votes aye. Missus Dingle? Missus Dingle votes aye. Mister Vizi? Mister Vizi votes aye.
Miss Kelly? Miss Kelly votes aye. Miss Baragon? Miss Baragon votes "I." Mister So?
Mister So to votes I. Miss Schrier? Miss Schrier votes I. Miss Treyhan? Miss Treyhan votes aye.
Miss Fletcher? Miss Fletcher votes aye. Miss Ocasio-Cortez? Miss Ocasio-Cortez votes aye. Mister Auckland?
Mister Auckinclaus votes aye. Mister Carter of Louisiana? Mister Carter of Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez votes aye.
Mister Mullen? Mister Mullen votes aye. Mister Lansman? Mister Lansman votes aye. Miss McCollin?
Miss McCollin votes aye. Chairman Guthrie? No. Chairman Guthrie votes no. Mister James is not recording.
James, no. Mister James votes no. Mister Pfluger votes no.
Speaker 2
Amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? Miss Mister Mueller, from what purpose does the gentleman from California speak recognition?
Speaker 40
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk titled, MuellerCA_062.
Speaker 2
I guess we're inquiring. Do we have a copy of the amendment on the desk? We'll get your amendment. Get to it.
Speaker 2
Offer that the objection in the reading amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman from California is recognized for five minutes to support the amendment.
Speaker 40
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am the dad of twin 8 year old boys, and I am truly worried about the world that awaits them on the Internet. From addictive social media and exploitative advertising to body image issues, depression, and the ease with which dangerous interactions can occur, I am candidly dreading the day that they come asking for a smartphone. All of us as parents want the best for our kids. I know I am willing to do everything in my power to protect them, and I know that instinct is driving every one of us here.
At the same time, not all kids are the same, and not every household is the same. While some parents wanna be able to monitor every interaction of their child, that's simply not realistic for the vast majority of us who are working. We have to provide a safe environment for them, but we also can't reorder the world based on our own personal viewpoints or family dynamics. I worry about the young person who needs to get confidential information about reproductive health care. I worry about the kid whose parent is abusing them, and they need help.
I worry about the kid who is figuring out their LGBTQ identity and is looking for support from peers or trusted sources. And as someone who cares deeply about civic engagement and instilling a love for this country and our democracy at an early age, I also worry about preventing kids from getting the basic information about the world around them. Technology can be a powerful tool. Like any tool, though, it has inappropriate uses. I think all of us on this committee are in broad agreement that the status quo is unacceptable.
I'm just worried about the negative byproduct of solutions that go too far in the name of protecting kids. That is why I'm offering this amendment to the Safe Messaging for Kids Act portion of HR 7757, which would require the platforms with messaging tools to give kids the ability to protect themselves from harm while giving parents the ability to review their child's protection settings. It would not go as far as the underlying bill does in banning certain types of messaging apps or requiring parents to, by default, approve or deny a child's every interaction, or review the identity of their contacts. My approach would provide parental choice. It would still require a layer of protection for kids, empowering them with a range of safety features, while enabling parents who wish to provide more oversight of their child's use of social media and messaging apps to do so.
With my amendment, we're not letting tech companies off the hook, quite the contrary, but we're also acknowledging that one size does not fit all when it comes to parenting. I have concerns about overreach with any proposed solution when we're talking about mandates for the entire country. I offer my amendment to strike, what I believe is a more balanced approach. Thank you to everyone who has been working on these important issues. I hope they're gonna be more bipartisan work on this in the future, rather than the partisan bills that have been put forward today.
And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 2
The gentleman yields back. The chair will recognize the gentle lady from North Dakota, Miss Vadorcek, to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 19
Chairman, members of the committee, you heard Mister Mullen say it himself. This amendment does not go as far as the bill that we're proposing. In other words, it weakens it, provides less protection for kids and for parents. This amendment guts the Safe Messaging for Kids Act by removing the bans of disappearing messages for minors and direct messaging for children, and removes the parental consent for teens to engage in direct messaging. The only thing a parent can do under this amendment is view the direct messaging controls.
Supporting this amendment means that it will make it easier for drug dealers to anonymously sell fentanyl to kids on Snapchat. It'll make it easier for child predators to send direct messages to children, and it'll make it easier for 14-year-olds to direct message strangers in the next town. Removing the ban on disappearing messages will also hinder law enforcement's ability to crack down on drug dealers and criminals, to gather evidence of crimes. This is an outrageous amendment that puts our kids at risk, hinders law enforcement, and, like many of the amendments offered today, shows the complete distrust the minority has in America's parents. I urge my colleagues to reject this harmful amendment, and vote yes on the underlying bill.
I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentle lady yells back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? I will recognize myself for five minutes to discuss the amendment. One, this show, I said we're gonna have the opportunity to vote today and go on record on who's here to protect, giving parents their responsibility and giving the authority over their children. This is one of those moments we're gonna have the chance to divide ourselves and say who is for it.
And it, you know, it's been mentioned one at either Congress acts or the regulatory side acts, or you go to court enact. And, you know, Congress has the Article One responsibility, and we talk a lot about it right here. And this is an opportunity to do that. So congress in this bill is defining the action that we won't take, or we could give a nebulous standard and send it to the FTC and let them define what it is. And in twenty, thirty years or five years down the road, when it has nothing to do with this, use that kind of, oh, we have this vague language.
We can do something else. And we all are concerned about that as legislators. They're not specific enough in how we address things. Or the other one is that we just kinda blow this up and do nothing and just let the courts handle it, which is abdicating our responsibility. So I wanna make sure that we know that Congress has to act.
This is an act. And, also, I just wanna say we're gonna have different amendments today, and this gives an opportunity to show whose sides people are on. And I will yield back. Is there a further discussion on the amendment? The gentlelady for seeing none on the Democrat side, the gentlelady from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 39
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I remember sitting here in this committee room when we had parents discussing with us their teenagers purchasing online through Snapchat drugs that were laced with fentanyl, one drug, one pill that led to their death, those emotionally riveting messages from parents begging us to do something and how law enforcement could not do anything because the messages disappeared. In my day, if you wanted to get an illegal drug, you actually had to go to the bad part of town. There was a little shaming. It was risky.
You were personally at risk by doing so. That is not today's world. To think that we would weaken a bill that would ban disappearing messages or that would allow direct messages to young teenagers knowing that they can get parental consent. Allow the parents to give that authority to those children if they choose. I left home at 16, the fourth of eight kids, started working and going to community college.
High level of responsibility. I realize not all kids are the same and can't do that. That's why you respect parental rights and give them the authority and responsibility for their own children. I strongly encourage people to vote against this ill-considered amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 2
General Lady yields back. Is there further discussion of the amendment? General Lady from Indiana is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am in strong opposition to this amendment, for reasons that I've already stated today, but we ought to have safer protections. We should not have disappearing messages available through Snapchat or other means for our kids. And this amendment would strip that out of the bill. I hope that I have got colleagues on the other side of the aisle who would vote against this, because it's just incredibly misguided on its face.
Even if I don't allow my child to have one of these, they can still have access to these apps on their friends' phones, on other devices that they can get access to, which puts parents in a position in America today where they cannot protect their own children. It is unbelievable to me that tech companies would have that much authority over our kids. And, for people out there that say it should be parents' responsibilities, it is. But we are outmatched because the tech availability today has reached into our homes and into our kids' bedrooms, you know, and they've got the door locked. And there's nothing that we can do, unless we pass some of these very should-be common sense and bipartisan bills.
I'm strongly opposed to this amendment, and I hope that, not just the Republicans on the committee, but the Democrats on the committee will also vote no in recognition that children under the age of 16, 17 should not have access to these apps and platforms without any parental involvement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 2
General lady, he goes back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Seeing no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. A roll call has been requested, and the clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 14
Mister Lotta. Mister Lotta votes no. Mr. Griffith. Mister Griffith votes no. Mister Belaracus.
Mister Belaracus votes no. Mr. Hudson. Mister Hudson votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no.
Mister Palmer? Mr Palmer votes no. Mister Dunn? No. Mister Dunn votes no.
Mister Crenshaw? Mr. Joyce? Mister Joyce votes no. Mister Weber? Mister Weber votes no.
Mister Allen? Mister Allen votes no. Mister Balderson? Mr Balderson votes no. Mister Fulcher?
Mister Fulcher votes no. Mister Fluger? Mister Fluger votes no. Missus Harshbarger? Missus Harshbarger votes no.
Missus Miller Meeks? Missus Miller-Meeks votes no. Missus Kamick? Missus Kamick votes no. Mister Obernoti?
Mister Obernoti votes no. Mr. James? Mister James votes no. Mister Bent? Mister Bentz votes no.
Missus Houchin? Missus Houchin votes no. Mr Fry? No. Mister Fry votes no.
Miss Lee? No. Miss Lee votes no. Mister Langworthy? Mister Langworthy votes no.
Mister Cain? Mister Cain votes no. Mister Ruley? Mister Ruley? Mister Ruley votes no.
Mister Evans? No. Mister Evans votes no. Mister Goldman? No.
Mister Goldman votes no. Missus Fedorchak? Missus Fedorchak votes no. Mister Polon. Mister Polon votes aye.
Mister Ghett? Mister Ghett votes aye. Miss Shakowski? Aye. Miss Shakowski votes aye.
Miss Matt Swee? Aye. Miss Matt Swee votes aye.
Speaker 14
Miss Castor? Aye. Miss Castor votes aye. Mister Tonko? Aye.
Mister Tonko votes aye. Miss Clark?
Speaker 14
Miss Clark votes aye. Mister Ruiz? Aye. Mister Ruiz votes aye. Mister Peters?
Mr. Peters votes aye. Missus Dingle? Missus Dingle votes aye. Mister Visi? Mister Visi votes aye.
Miss Kelly? Miss Kelly votes aye. Miss Baragon? Miss Baragon votes aye. Mister So?
Mister So votes aye. Miss Schrier? Miss Schrier votes aye. Miss Treyhan? Miss Treyhan votes aye.
Miss Fletcher? Miss Fletcher votes aye. Miss Ocasio-Cortez. Mister Achengloss. Mister Achengloss votes aye.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mister Mullin?
Mister Mullin votes aye. Mister Lansman? Mister Lansman votes aye. Miss McCullin? Miss McCullin votes aye.
Chairman Guthrie? Chairman Guthrie votes no.
Speaker 2
The clerk will report. Is there anyone seeking a roll call with the clerk who will report?
Speaker 2
With 23 i's and 29 no's, the no's have it, and the bill, the amendment is not agreed to.
Speaker 2
The clerk, are there any further amendments? The general lady from Michigan, what purpose do you seek recognition for?
Speaker 14
Amendment to the amendment and the nature of a substitute to HR 7757 offered by Missus Dingell of Michigan. Page 76.
Speaker 2
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in support of our amendment.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As drafted, this bill deeply concerns me on parents' rights. It contains preemption language and complex liability shields that, in practice, make it harder for families to seek justice. Children are going to continue to die. Parents are gonna continue to get stonewalled.
And all the while, tech companies will continue to avoid accountability. We are not talking about hypothetical situations. According to reports, more than 800 parents of children who have allegedly been sexually exploited online have recently demanded that big tech abandon efforts to force claims into arbitration. Here's what happens with forced arbitration. It keeps cases secret, it limits accountability, and it denies families their day in court.
And before someone else says, this is the trial lawyers, I have my daily moments with the trial lawyers. Remember where I come from? I'm in the auto industry. But this is something that parents have a right to because if they're gonna try to help other parents, you cannot hide what has happened. I will note that nearly 80% of consumers don't even realize they've signed away the right to sue through forced arbitration clauses that are buried in contracts in terms of the services.
And let's all be honest, once in arbitration, companies win most cases. If we are serious about protecting kids online, we cannot simultaneously shield platforms from public accountability. Transparency and justice matter, and that is why I've introduced this amendment to ensure that children and their parents are not forced into mandatory arbitration when bringing claims involving online safety or privacy harms, that families have a right to seek relief in court. This is about accountability, it's about transparency, and it's about fairness. And, ultimately, it protects our children.
With that, I yield back.
Speaker 2
General lady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, roll call is being requested? Oh, there is seeing none, the row the clerk will call.
Speaker 14
Mr. Griffith. Mister Griffith votes no. Mister Belaracus votes no. Mister Hudson? Mister Hudson votes no.
Mr. Carter of Georgia? Mister Palmer? Mister Palmer votes no. Mister Dunn? Mister Dunn votes no.
Mister Crenshaw? Mister Joyce? Mister Weber? Mister Weber votes no. Mr Allen?
Mister Balderson? Mister Balderson votes no. Mister Folter? Mister Folter votes no. Mister Pfluger?
Mister Pfluger votes no. Missus Harshbarger? Missus Harshbarger votes no. Missus Miller Meeks? No.
Missus Miller Meeks votes no. Missus Kamick? No. Missus Kamick votes no. Mister Obernotti?
Mister Obernotti votes no. Mr James? Mister James votes no. Mr Bentz? Mister Bentz votes no.
Missus Houchin? No. Missus Houchin votes no. Mr Fry? Mister Fry votes no.
Miss Lee? No. Miss Lee votes no. Mr. Langworthy? No.
Mister Langworthy votes no. Mister Cain? No. Mister Cain votes no. Mister Ruley?
Mister Evans? No. Mr. Evans votes no. Mister Goldman? Mister Goldman votes no.
Missus Fedorchak? Missus Fedorchak votes no. Mister Polon? Mister Polon votes aye. Mister Ghet?
Mister Ghet votes aye. Miss Shukowski? Aye. Miss Shukowski votes aye. Miss Matsowie?
Miss Matsui votes aye. Miss Castor? Aye. Miss Castor votes aye. Mister Tonko?
Aye. Mister Tonko votes aye. Miss Clark? Aye. Miss Clark votes aye.
Mister Ruiz?
Speaker 14
Mister Ruiz votes aye. Mister Peters? Mr. Peters votes aye. Mrs. Dingle? Missus Dingle votes aye.
Mister Vizi?
Speaker 14
Miss Kelly? Miss Kelly votes aye. Miss Paragon? Miss Paragon votes aye. Mister So?
Mister So votes aye. Miss Schrier? Miss Schrier votes aye. Miss Treyhan? Miss Treyhan votes aye.
Miss Fletcher? Miss Fletcher votes aye. Miss Ocasio-Cortez? Mister Auclinclaus? Mister Aucinclaus votes aye.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana? Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mister Mullen?
Mr. Mullen votes aye. Mister Lansman? Mister Lansman votes aye. Miss McCollin? Miss McClellan votes aye.
Chairman Guthrie? No. Chairman Guthrie votes no.
Speaker 14
Mister Joyce is not recorded. Mister Joyce Carter votes in Georgia. Mr Carter of Georgia votes.
Speaker 14
Mister chairman, on that vote, there are 23 ayes and 27 noes. Amendment is not agreed to.
Speaker 2
Are there any further amendments? Our personal generality from Washington seeks recognition.
Speaker 14
Clerk will report amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 7757.
Speaker 2
Objection, the reading of amendment is dispensed with, and the general lady from Washington is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
Speaker 24
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I've said before, I'm extremely frustrated with this markup, and protecting kids online is paramount, and we are years behind in passing legislation. We can't keep letting entire generations of kids be treated like guinea pigs to predatory big tech and social media platforms. I know that the concerns in this committee are genuinely bipartisan. We need our policy to be bipartisan too.
That's why I'm offering an amendment today to include the text of the Kids Off Social Media Act. This is a bipartisan, bicameral bill that has strong support in the Senate and even passed out of the Senate Commerce Committee. It is a bill that will keep kids 13 off social media entirely, and would prevent social media companies from using any personalized recommendation systems on minors under the age of 17, and it actually has a path forward. These are vital protections for kids who are spending too much time being sucked into social media by algorithms that are designed to keep them scrolling. I urge my colleagues to come to the table on strong bipartisan proposals so that we can pass truly comprehensive and impactful legislation to protect kids on top online.
I know we need to continue to work on this as a committee, and so I withdraw this amendment, and I will yield back.
Speaker 2
General lady yields back. Is there further discussion? General lady from Indiana is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong opposition to this bill. It hit this amendment. The Kids Off Social Media Act should be called the Kids On Social Media Act because it sets a minimum age for social media at the age of 13, which would do nothing to prevent the issues that I experienced as a parent or that any of these other parents have experienced. That's the exact threshold that every major platform already has today.
It has been the standard for 30 years, mostly because of how online services comply with COPPA 1.0 from 1996. We would be writing into federal law the same standard that Meta has been hiding behind for a decade. That is not reform. It is not good. That's a gift to Big Tech.
I don't think there shouldn't be a single individual in here that thinks the status quo is acceptable to prevent harm. How much research do we need to know to have to prove that we think 13 should not be the age of adulthood for kids online. That this bill simply makes the broken status quo permanent. The science is not ambiguous. The heaviest damage for anxiety, depression, and self-harm hits hardest between the ages of 11 and 15.
My RESET Act draws the line at 16 because that's what research demands, and because it actually requires the platforms to do something different than what they're already doing. I appreciate the intent behind the amendment. I hope that representative Schrier will come on board to the RESET Act, where it sets a clear line at age 16. But by codifying the status quo and calling it a win is not something I can support. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and join me in pushing for a standard that will actually move the line and protect children.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Yield to the general, for what? Did you yield back or yield? So the general, so he yield back. Did I understand that? I must have misheard.
Did you withdraw the amendment?
Speaker 24
I just had one comment to make, but thank you for your comments, Miss Houchin. Thank.
Speaker 2
you. The amendment has been withdrawn. Are there any further amendments? Seeing none, there's no further amendments. We'll move to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Are there any amendments to the amendment in the nature of the substitute, Mister Dunn?
Speaker 36
So I want to urge my colleagues to support this legislation. My legislation, the Safe Messaging for Kids Act, included in Chairman Guthrie's Kids Act today. The Kids Act is a package of bipartisan bills that brings together several pieces of legislation, many of which my colleagues and I have been working on to perfect for years. I'm proud of my friend Chairman Guthrie in prioritizing protecting children by ensuring that we pass these bills through committee today. As a father and a grandfather, I vehemently maintain that our data privacy laws must be updated to protect minors online.
My grandkids are living in 2026, not 1998 when the COPPA act was first passed. Our laws must keep pace with the tech that our younger generations are using. And today, we're facing a crisis of our own making, and we failed to provide the digital equivalent of seat belts or smoke detectors. As a doctor, when a patient is bleeding, I don't wait for a committee report. I apply a tourniquet.
Right now, our children are bleeding. They're being targeted, groomed, exploited on social media platforms built with features that allow predators to operate in the shadows. That is why I introduced the Safe Messaging for Kids Act. This bill is a direct intervention to stop two specific mechanisms the predators use to hunt our children: ephemeral messaging and unsolicited contact. Ephemeral messaging is the technical term for messages that vanish automatically after being viewed.
Predators depend on these disappearing messages. They erase the trail of grooming, cyberbullying, illegal drug sales before a parent can detect it and long before law enforcement can act. My bill puts an end to this. Under the SMK act, social media platforms are prohibited from offering auto deleting messages and features to any user they know or deliberately avoid is under the age of 17. The solution is restoring parental authority.
The SMK Act requires parental direct messaging controls to put the parents back in charge. For children 13, direct messaging must be turned off by default. For teens 17, parents must have visibility into who is attempting to contact their child. Platforms will be required to alert parents to messages from unapproved contacts and give them the power to approve or deny those requests before their communication begins. This is not helicopter parenting.
It is responsible parenting. We're giving families the tools they need to protect their children. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Our children depend on us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I
Speaker 2
You were you withdraw your motion to strike the last word? You withdraw your motion to strike the last word. So yes. So now, if there's no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment and the nature of a substitute. And this will be a voice vote unless somebody requests different.
All those in favor shall say aye. Aye. All the opposed say nay.
Speaker 2
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. The question now occurs on adopting HR 7757 as amended. A roll call has been requested, and the clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 14
Mister Lada? Aye. Mister Lada votes aye. Mister Griffith? Mister Griffith votes aye.
Mister Belaracus? Mister Belaracus votes aye. Mister Hudson? Mister Hudson votes aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia?
Aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes aye. Mr Palmer? Mr. Palmer votes aye. Mr Dunn?
Aye. Mr. Dunn votes aye. Mister Crenshaw? Mister Joyce? Mister Joyce votes aye.
Mister Weber? Mr Allen? Aye. Mr. Allen votes aye. Mister Balderson?
Mister Balderson votes aye. Mister Folter? Aye. Mister Folter votes aye. Mister Fluger?
Mister Fluger votes aye. Missus Harshbarger? Missus Harshbarger votes aye. Missus Miller Meeks? Missus Miller Meeks votes aye.
Missus Kamick? Missus Kamick votes aye. Mister Opernote? Mister Opernote votes aye. Mr James?
Mister James votes aye. Mister Bentz? Mister Bentz votes. Missus Houchin? Missus Houchin votes I.
Mr Fry? Mister Fry votes I. Miss Lee? Miss Lee votes aye. Mister Langworthy?
Aye. Mr. Langworthy votes aye. Mr Cain? Mr. Cain votes aye. Mister Ruley?
Mister Evans?
Speaker 14
Mr. Evans votes aye. Mister Goldman? Mr. Goldman votes aye. Missus Fedorchak? Missus Fedorchak votes aye.
Mister Pelon? Mister Polon votes no. Miss Digit? No. Digat votes no.
Miss Shukowski? No. Miss Shukowski votes no. Miss Massui? No.
Miss Massui votes no. Miss Castor? No. Miss Castor votes no. Mister Tonko?
No. Mister Tonko votes no. Miss Clark? Yes. Miss Clark votes no.
Mister Ruiz? Mister Ruiz votes no. Mr Peters? Mister Peters votes no. Missus Dingle?
Missus Dingle votes no. Mister Visi? Mister Visi votes no. Miss Kelly? Miss Kelly votes no.
Miss Baragon? Miss Baragon votes no. Mister So? Mister So to vote no. Miss Schrier?
Miss Schrier votes no. Miss Treyhan? Miss Treyhan votes no. Miss Fletcher? Miss Fletcher votes no.
Miss Ocasio-Cortez? Miss Ocasio-Cortez votes no. Mister Achenklaas? Mister Achenklaas votes no. Mister Carter of Louisiana?
Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes no. Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez votes no. Mister Mullen? Mister Mullen votes no.
Mister Lansman? Mister Lansman votes no. Miss McCollin? Miss McCollin votes no. Chairman Guthrie?
Aye. Chairman Guthrie votes aye.
Speaker 2
So, mister Weber? Yes. Mister Weber votes aye. Anyone on the Republican or Democrat side? Everyone having voted?
Anyone coming on their way? Anybody knows anybody on their way? Seeing none, the clerk will report.
Speaker 2
The i's have it, and the bill is adopted. So in honor, Mister Chapman, in honor of your son, the chair calls up HR 2657 known as Sami's Law, and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 14
H.R. 2657, a bill to require large social media platforms to provide us to create, maintain, and make available to third party safety software providers a set of real time applications.
Speaker 2
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point, so ordered. Does anybody seek to be recognized on the bill, mister Carter from Georgia? Do you recognize?
Speaker 14
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 2657 offered by Mister Carter of Georgia. Strike all after the
Speaker 2
No objection. The reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of this amendment.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna begin by recognizing the young man this bill is named after. We can get it up. Sammy Chapman, whose picture is behind me. Sammy was a bright and talented teenager whose life was tragically cut short after he became the victim of a fentanyl poison drug he bought through social media.
Like so many parents across the country, Sammy's family had no idea who he was talking to and what about until it was too late. We have the honor today of having Sammy's father here, and other parents of their child victims today. Mister Chapman, thank you for being here. You honor us with your presence. What happened to Sammy is a heartbreaking reminder that the social media world our children inhabit today can expose them to dangers that most parents simply cannot see, and sometimes don't understand.
And that's exactly why Sami's law is so important. This legislation gives parents the ability to use trusted, vetted, safe tools that allow them to responsibly supervise their child's social media activity on large social media platforms. Through secure interfaces, families can authorize safety software that can alert parents when dangerous content comes across their child's social media account. Today, kids face real dangers on social media, including online predators, exploitation, drug sales, suicide encouragement, and trafficking networks that actively target young users. Third party safety software can and does provide life-saving alerts for all of these harms.
It is comprehensive protection. Simply put, this bill restores something parents should never have lost: the ability to protect their children on social media. Too often, parents discover these threats after a tragedy has already occurred. Sami's Law gives families the tools they need to identify those warning signs earlier and intervene before harm is done. And in doing so, this bill will save lives.
Sami's law also includes strong safeguards to protect children's data and ensure responsible use of these tools. Third party safety software providers must register with the Federal Trade Commission, undergo independent annual audits, and be strictly prohibited from selling children's data. Data disclosure to parents is limited only to what is necessary to protect a child from harm. Remember, only do what is necessary to protect a child from harm, and strict deletion requirements ensure that sensitive information is not retained unnecessarily. In other words, this bill carefully balances child safety with strong new privacy protections.
And at the end of the day, Sammy's Law is about empowering families. It gives parents the ability to see when their child may be in danger, and the opportunity to step in before it becomes a tragedy. This is absolutely necessary because the harms that our children are confronting on social media are severe, and our children simply do not yet have the developmental skills to protect themselves alone. If this bill helps even one family avoid what happened to Sammy Chapman, then it would be worth it. As the proud grandfather of six beautiful grandkids, I wanna know that their parents and all other parents across the country have the best safety tools possible when protecting their innocent loved ones.
What happened to Sam is a travesty that no parents should experience, and we can prevent it today by passing this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. This is important legislation. As my colleague, Representative Miller Meeks, said a little while ago, parents need help. They need help with this.
They can't do it alone. This is a tool that will help them, a tool in their tool chest. God forbid that this happened to anyone else. We need to take action. You know, I don't doubt any of you knew my dad, but my dad used to tell me something.
He used to say, son, when you don't do something, you're doing something. And if we don't do something, then we're doing nothing. We're ignoring an opportunity to help people. We need to do something today. We need to pass Sami's law.
Thank you, mister chairman, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Jimin yields back. The chair recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, mister Palome, for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do wanna say that I share the goal of this bill to keep kids safe and to prevent more tragedies from occurring. But I have to oppose the bill today, because I am concerned that it takes us a step in the wrong direction on privacy. This bill requires social media companies to provide access to children's private accounts and communications to third-party safety software providers, who then are empowered to share these communications with law enforcement and parents. I have concerns both about the precedent this sets for private communications, including encrypted communications, and the potential for harm to kids whose parents enable this monitoring software.
These third party safety software providers would be sitting in on conversations between children and their friends, and able to view encrypted messages, undermining the privacy of children, even those whose parents might not consent to this surveillance. The providers would be required to keep data related to disclosures made under the act until a request for deletion or a child turning 18. That is not data minimization in action, and I'm very concerned that we need data minimization. Moreover, not all kids are raised in supportive or even safe households. As congress, we have a duty to keep all kids safe, and I worry that this bill risks exposing kids in bad situations to harm if their conversations are revealed to their parents.
And for these reasons, I will be voting no on H.R. 2657. But despite my no vote today, I do remain committed to continuing to work on solutions to hold tech companies like Snap accountable for making their platforms a safer place for kids online. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 2
Jim Munnies, back to chair recognizing a lady from Iowa for five minutes to speak on the bill or the amendment.
Speaker 39
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also wanna thank representatives Carter, Schreyer, and Wasserman Schultz for their work on this important bill. Millions of children and teenagers interact with social media every single day, and many are exposed to content that can negatively affect their mental health and their well-being. And never have we seen this more clearly than we did during the pandemic, when children were isolated and not in school. As parents try to navigate an ever-changing digital landscape for which their children often are more proficient than they are, they deserve practical tools that can help them keep their children safe online.
The primary duty of a parent is to protect their children. Sami's Law takes a common-sense approach by giving parents more control over their children's online experiences. The bill creates pathways for trusted third-party safety applications that can alert parents when harmful or dangerous content is shared with their child. For goodness sakes, when I grew up, you could not go buy a pornographic magazine in the store without having proof of ID or print, or some other adult gave it to you. Just as important, it ensures families have access to mental health resources when young people need additional support.
At its core, this legislation is about empowering parents and providing them with options to better protect their children in today's digital environment. I appreciate the bipartisan effort behind this bill and look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to ensure their families have the tools that they need to keep their kids safe online. I now yield time to Representative Carter.
Speaker 7
Thank the lady for yielding. I wanna address the concerns that the minority leader had, that he had addressed about the privacy. Actually, what Sami's law does is it improves children's privacy compared to the status quo. We're actually improving the status quo right now. Today, most parents who are deeply concerned about the dangers of social media, and they should be, are following the common sense advice of the experts like the American Psychological Association.
They attempt to provide responsible supervision of social media use, but as has been pointed out in this hearing, they need help. They can't do it alone. And without comprehensive access to safety software, many parents resort to invasive methods like manually reviewing their child's phone. Safety software instead provides targeted alerts, key phrases, keywords. Only when serious risks are detected, such as suicide, exploitation, or trafficking.
So to address the concerns about privacy, we are actually improving the privacy. And I yield back to the lady from Iowa.
Speaker 39
Thank you. I would just say that my first grandchild was born this weekend. And even though I supported this bill before, I want this child's parents to have the tools they need to protect that precious little baby. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Welcome back to the grandparents club. It's a wonderful club, isn't it, Mr. Ranking Member? The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 13
Thank you, chairman, and congratulations to the gentlelady. I wanna express that I think the gentleman from Georgia is making some really reasonable points here. And that, frankly, as a parent of three children, I would probably avail myself of these tools because I understand the intent here. Let me put forward, though, two considerations that are keeping me from voting yes on this. The first is that we have to recognize the pattern that when we build skeleton keys into the backs of technology, those skeleton keys do get abused by bad actors.
We have seen this pattern over the course of 20 years here. They get abused by law enforcement at various levels in ways that are, that undermine due process and civil rights. That's not academic. Unfortunately, we're seeing this right now with this federal government. They get abused by overzealous attorneys general in pursuit of ideological caucus causes.
They get abused by unsupportive parents or spouses or significant others, including parents of the children that your children is interacting with. Because, remember, there's two degrees of association here that the privacy can be revealed. And I think we have to really acknowledge that these skeleton keys are going to be abused by bad actors, and that those long-tail effects have real consequences. The second consideration though to me is more fundamental, which is I worry about the premise that we are accepting here. It feels like we are accepting a premise that big tech has created a surveillance economy at the expense of our children.
And so the way to counteract that is to give parents the tools to also surveil their children, and to have a sort of cat and mouse game of who can surveil more effectively. Well, you know what? Parents are gonna lose that because they don't have 100,000 software engineers and, you know, consultant addiction specialists like Mark Zuckerberg does. Parents are trying to work a job and keep their kids healthy and figure out, you know, the day-in, day-out life. They can't be tech experts keeping up to date with all the latest software applications.
What we actually need to do is here in Congress, where we do have the power, is hold these social media corporations accountable directly with the duty of care, with age limits, and, of course, with liability so that when they violate the trust that parents are putting in them when their kids download these apps, they can be sued for it. That is the way I think that we empower parents against the surveillance economy. I yield back, Chair.
Speaker 2
Gentleman yields back as a further discussion of republic, Mister Palmer from Alabama is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 41
I thank the chairman. I'd move to strike the last word. I rise to speak on the amendment. This is serious stuff, and I realize that there are serious discussions about privacy. But we have to realize that the parents have to know what's going on with their children.
And I think that is of paramount importance here. I think what representative Carter's trying to do is empower the parents, give them the tools that they need to be able to intervene before it's too late. And with that, I'll yield to time to Representative Carter.
Speaker 7
I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just wanted to respond if I could to my friend from Massachusetts, and he made some good points. There is a risk of abuse here. You know, I don't know if y'all knew it or not. I'm a pharmacist, and one of the things that is news to everybody.
That's an inside joke, folks. Anyway, no. Seriously. Seriously. One of the things that we did when I was a consultant pharmacist in a long-term care facility, you always considered, does the risk outweigh the benefit?
In this case, it does not. The benefit outweighs the risk. This is a benefit. Yes. There are risks.
And to the gentleman's other point about duty of care and about making it stronger, I'm sure we can make it stronger. But let's not let perfect get in the way of very good. This is a good bill. This is a good step. A good step in the right direction.
Yeah. We need to do more, and we will do more. And you and the gentleman is absolutely right when he says that we're not gonna be able to out compete the platforms. They've got addiction experts. He is absolutely right.
But that doesn't mean we can't try. That doesn't mean we don't do everything we can to give parents a fighting chance, and this gives parents a fighting chance. And I'll yield back to the gentleman from Alabama. I yield.
Speaker 2
Gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from Washington, Doctor Schrier, is recognized for five minutes as we go to the amendment.
Speaker 24
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm very proud to be able to support Sami's law during this markup today along with my colleagues, Miss Wasserman Schultz, Mister Carter, and Doctor Miller Meeks. I've been listening to all the comments here today, listening as the mom of a 17 year old. And I look at the parents here today, and I just think all we wanna do is keep our kids safe. And I don't know about other parents out there.
I mean, I'm I have an agreement with my son that it was part of the deal. You know? Like, we get you a phone, we get access to it because we want to make sure you're safe. But, you know, I also feel like at 17 he deserves privacy, and that it's not really okay for me to be reading his text messages. I mean, what it really comes down to is we just wanna be alerted if there's something that's really dangerous going on that would give us a signal so that we could just sit down and have a conversation and not miss the opportunity.
And this doesn't let social media companies off the hook. It has nothing to do with that. This is just giving parents another tool. These third party platforms, they're already out there. Parents already use them.
This just makes it so that if there's something really dangerous coming up, that all of these social media platforms, all the major ones, have to participate and let these kind of watchdog parent-supporting platforms have access to that so that parents have more reassurance. It's a bipartisan bill. We've worked on this for years, and I'm really happy to see it moving forward with lots of support today. It just ensures that parents have another tool to keep their kids safe online while still preserving their privacy. And I know about the parents who are here in the room today.
Thank you, Mr. Chapman, for being here. They've lost their kids to fentanyl poisoning and suicide, and harassment online, bullying. And these are things that are caused by the platforms and then the people, many adults that kids encounter online. And so I just wanna thank all the parents here for your advocacy. This bill is named after, as you know, 16-year-old Sammy Chapman, who unknowingly bought a fentanyl-laced pill on Snapchat, and that pill killed him.
And he is far from the only one, and that is why this law is so necessary. It would ensure that third party safety apps can just alert parents when their child is experiencing or at clear risk to experience harm. There are very specific categories: suicide, depression, eating disorders, violence, sexual abuse, trafficking. These safety apps are watchdogs that alert parents when there's a real and imminent risk of harm to their child. They share only the most necessary information so that the parents can understand what the danger might be.
And this doesn't help parents track kids' every move or thought online. It just helps them know what's going on so they can keep their kids out of true and life-threatening harm. Many social media companies, as I mentioned, already provide access to these apps, but notably, Snapchat does not. Sami's Law would ensure that all major social media companies provide access so that bad actors can't skirt these important protections. I really truly believe that Sami's Law will save lives.
Keeping kids safe online is a tall task for any parent these days, and Sami's Law will make that test just a little easier, and we'll keep kids safer. I wanna thank my colleagues again who I've partnered with on this bill, and I wanna thank you for your hard work and collaboration. And I urge my colleagues to support this bill, support parents, and keep kids safe. And I yield back.
Speaker 2
The gentle lady yells back. The gentle lady from New York is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 12
Thank you. I'd like to also, kinda speak a little bit to some of the concerns that the gentleman from Massachusetts had raised earlier, as well. In this bill, I've seen a couple of aspects here that I think are points of concern. One, this idea of making available third-party safety software by tech creators or by tech companies to manage children's online interactions, content, and account settings. These, from what we are seeing, these third party softwares are very likely to be powered by AI.
And I have massive concerns about the absolute explosion in unregulated expansion of AI jurisdiction around personal and sensitive information, and particularly around AI's collection of data on children. From what I also see, there's state preemption included in the bill, which I think also raises some other concerns that we've had around this issue. And the privacy piece as well in terms of abuse of some of the most sensitive information about some of our most vulnerable Americans and American children. And so I just wanted to raise some of those aspects of this debate. And with that, I yield back.
General.
Speaker 2
General lady, I'm sorry. General lady yields back, as a further discussion on the Republican side. The general lady from Virginia, Miss McClellan, you're recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 29
Thank you, mister chairman. You know, this one is a hard one for me because I understand what we're trying to do. And, again, as a parent, I agree with the concept, but I have some very real concerns about, you know, as the gentleman from Massachusetts had said, we're basically creating a surveillance state on our children. And the more entities or hands, virtual hands, that touch data, the more likely it is to be stolen. And I don't think the cybersecurity safeguards in this bill are strong enough.
And one of the things we haven't talked about yet that we need to do to keep our kids safe is how images and data about our children are being stolen and manipulated to create deep fakes that include using them in AI generated pornography. And to surveil all of our children's social media interactions or digital interactions to flag something that is dangerous, remember, they're looking at every single interaction. And if somebody hacks that or gets a hold of that, and the cybersecurity safeguards fail, you are giving more people a touch point. Basically, you were saying, wanna find kid online data? Here's your target.
Go hack this site. You have access to a plethora of private data, images, or whatever of kids. And before we go down that road, we gotta be really sure that the cybersecurity safeguards are strong enough to protect that new target from some really bad actors. I'm not sure we've thought through that far enough, and I hope we can fix that concern. I yield back.
Speaker 2
General, lady yields back. Is there further discussion? Further discussion? Seeing none. The vote we're gonna do adopt them.
So the vote, there's no further discussion. The vote is on the amendment. This amendment is in nature of a substitute. I believe we agree that will be a voice vote, so I will call. All those in favor shall say aye for office saying aye.
Aye. All the opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. The question now occurs on adopting Sami's law, HR 2657, as amended. A roll call has been requested, and the clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 14
Mister Lotta. Mister Lotta votes. I. Mr. Griffith? Mister Griffith votes. Mister Belaracus?
Mister Belaracus votes 1. Mister Hudson? Mister Hudson votes. I. Mister Carter of Georgia? Aye.
Mr. Carter of Georgia votes aye. Mr Palmer? Aye. Mr Palmer votes aye. Mister Dunn?
Aye. Mister Dunn votes aye. Mister Crenshaw? Mister Joyce votes aye. Mr. Weber.
Mr. Allen. Mr. Balderson. Mr Balderson votes aye. Mister Fulcher, Mister Fulcher votes aye. Mister Fluger, Missus Harshbarger, Missus Harshbarger votes aye.
Missus Miller Meeks. Missus Miller Meeks votes aye. Missus Kamick? Mister Obernoti? Aye.
Mister Obernoti votes aye. Mr James? Aye. Mr. James votes aye. Mr Bentz?
Mr. Bentz votes aye. Missus Houchin? Missus Houchin votes aye. Mr Fry? Mister Fry votes aye.
Miss Lee? Aye. Miss Lee votes aye. Mister Langworthy? Aye.
Mr. Langworthy votes aye. Mr Cain? Aye. Mister Cain votes aye. Mister Ruley?
Aye. Mister Rule votes aye. Mister Evans? Aye. Mr Evans votes aye.
Mister Goldman? Aye. Mr. Goldman votes aye. Missus Fedorchak? Aye.
Missus Fedorchak votes aye. Mister Polon? Mister Polon votes no. Miss Diguet? Miss Diguet votes no.
Miss Shakowski votes no. Miss Matsoy? No. Miss Matsoy votes no. Miss Castor?
Miss Castor? Miss Castor votes no. Mister Tonko? No. Mister Tonko votes no.
Miss Clark? Miss Clark votes no. Mister Ruiz? Mister Ruiz votes aye. Mr Peters?
Mister Peters votes no. Missus Dingle? Missus Dingle votes aye. Mister Visi? Mister Visi votes no.
Miss Kelly? Miss Barrigan? Miss Baragon votes aye. Mister So to votes aye. Miss Schrier, Miss Schrier votes aye.
Miss Treyhan, Miss Treyhan votes aye. Miss Fletcher? No. Miss Fletcher votes no. Miss Ocasio-Cortez?
Miss Ocasio Cortez votes no. Mister Auckland? Mister Achengloss votes no. Mister Carter of Louisiana? Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes no.
Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez votes no. Mister Mullen? Mister Mullen votes no.
Mister Lansman? Mister Lansman votes aye. Miss McCullen? Miss McCollin votes no. Chairman Guthrie?
Aye. Chairman Guthrie votes aye. Mister Weber? Aye. Mister Weber votes aye.
Speaker 14
Miss Kamek is not recorded. Miss Kamek votes. I. Mister Pfluger. Mister Pfluger votes I.
Speaker 2
Anybody else on the Republican side or on the Democrat side? Has everybody voted that recorded? The clerk will report.
Speaker 2
The ayes have it. The bill is adopted. The chair calls up HR 3149 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 14
HR 3149, a bill to safeguard children by providing parents with clear and accurate information about the apps downloaded.
Speaker 2
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for a minute at any point so ordered. Does anyone seem to be recognized on the bill? If there are no discussion on the bill, what purpose does the gentleman from Michigan seek recognition?
Speaker 2
Well, let me, he has to report the amendment. I'm sorry. Alright. You got an amendment to report?
Speaker 2
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman from Michigan is recognized to speak for 5 minutes in support of the amendment.
Speaker 35
I'm grateful to my colleague, Mr. Obenolti, working on this bill with me. This amendment represents a narrow and practical update to the App Store Accountability Act, while at the same time maintaining the core spirit of the bill. My number one goal has always been to empower parents and protect children online. This is what parents want, and this is what my bill will do. As I said earlier, kids cannot consent, and any company that exposes them to addictive or adult material should be held accountable.
I repeat, kids cannot consent, and no one's above the law, including Big Tech. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back.
Speaker 2
German yields? German yields, is there any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing no further discussion on the amendment. Are there further amendments? Oh, you're sorry.
Gentlemen from Texas is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 30
Yeah. No. Mister chairman, thank you very much. I'm not supporting the amendment. I'm happy to see that we're having conversation that these companies are having conversations about around these apps being accountable, but definitely still have some issues.
But I'm glad that we are at least having some conversations around there, because I think that this is probably just the beginning of something that I think is going to be important and helping get this right. So I just wanted to put that in there. And, I wanted to thank the gentleman for working on the amendment, even though I'm not supporting it today. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Gentleman yells back. Is there a gentleman from California seeking recognition to speak on the amendment? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 38
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill, H.R. 3149, takes some very meaningful steps in giving parents visibility and control over the content that their children consume through mobile applications and app stores. And, I'd like to thank my colleague, Representative James, and the committee staff for working with me on improving the bill. I think we've made a lot of meaningful progress here. This is something that this work product is something that's very implementable now.
And, although I think it still needs a little bit more work moving forward, it's really come a long way. And, I'd urge everyone to support it, and give parents the tools that they need to oversee the content that their kids are consuming online. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentleman yields back. There are any speaking on the amendment nature of substitute.
Speaker 2
I will recognize myself to speak on the amendment, and I will yield to Mr. James from Michigan.
Speaker 35
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. Just so we're clear and we're laying the battlefield, the App Store Accountability Act holds big tech companies to the same standard as local corner stores. It protects the next generation by empowering parents and making clear that when it comes to safeguarding children, no one gets a free pass. How many studies, how many congressional hearings do we need to know the status quo is broken?
How many heartbreaking stories do we need to hear from parents? So many of us on this committee are parents ourselves. We see with our own eyes the threat big tech poses to children every single day. Our nation's children deserve better, and we will act right now. Big tech is exploiting our laws as they continue to rake in billions of dollars in profit at the expense of our nation's children.
Social media is not only an addictive service for children, but it's also harmful to their mental acuity and overall health. Statistician Edward Tufts said there are only two industries that call their customers users, illegal drugs and software. As a father of three school-age boys, the warning signs of social media's impact on kids are abundantly clear to me and to all parents. The App Store Accountability Act is the appropriate response to ensure that children are not accessing restricted material through online app stores, and it gives parents real control over what their kids can download. I'm grateful for the positive feedback that I've received from so many over so long about this App Store Accountability Act.
I'm especially appreciative of chair Bill Araucus and rep Houchin for cosponsoring the bill, as Mr. Obenolti mentioned, he has been working closely with us to make it stronger. Just as brick and mortar stores are held responsible for selling age-restricted materials like tobacco and alcohol to minors, The App Store Accountability Act will hold digital app stores accountable for providing adult or age-restricted materials to minors as well. It's simple. Kids cannot consent, and any company that exposes them to addictive or adult material should be held accountable. I repeat, kids cannot consent.
We would never allow a bank or a car dealership to enter into binding agreements with 13- or 14-year-olds. Why are we allowing billion-dollar tech companies to do exactly the same thing? No one is above the law, especially big tech. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join the more than 4,500 parents and over 150 organizations across the country who've expressed their support for this App Store accountability act. And with that, Mister Chairman, thank you for yielding.
Speaker 2
Thank you. The gentleman yields back to me, and I will yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Are there other amendments to the bill? The gentleman from Massachusetts, what purpose do you seek recognition for?
Speaker 2
At the desk. Do you have an amendment at the desk? Yes. Okay. Gentleman from Massachusetts, what amendment would you like to identify?
Speaker 14
Her career report? Amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3149 offered by mister Ackinclaus of Massachusetts.
Speaker 2
A lot of objects in the reading. The amendment was Smith, and the gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
Speaker 13
Thank you, chair. This amendment would strike the text of the App Store Accountability Act and replace it with my bipartisan bill, the Parents Over Platforms Act. Age assurance and verification is an important and necessary part of the kids' online safety conversation. It's the legal and technical infrastructure for so much of what we wanna do, and it's overdue. But the App Store Accountability Act is regrettably not the path forward on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and support my amendment.
The App Store Accountability Act falls short in a number of areas. First, it requires verification mechanisms that are too burdensome for users and create unnecessary data privacy risks, including biometric or government ID standards. Second, the bill is over-inclusive with regard to the types of applications required to receive an age signal from the App Store. So it would require every app, regardless of its content or purpose, including weather apps, calculator apps, to receive age signals from app stores, and require parental consent for minors to download it. It would restrict minors from downloading apps for news, the weather, educational purposes, and other lower risk categories.
It basically creates a morass where parents and children, every time they download an app, every time they update that app, are doing invasive, age verification procedures that create this scattershot compliance fatigue that actually ends up serving the purposes of the big tech companies because parents just throw up their hands. The build though is also underinclusive with regard to the types of app stores covered. It leaves out third-party app stores as well as app stores for virtual reality and gaming platforms. Now that's very convenient. As I said, this is a meta markup.
Very convenient for Meta, which has pointed to its future as the metaverse. Of course, they want to exempt virtual reality and gaming platforms because they don't want parents to know what's going on in there. Zuckerberg has already said that he wants to see kids have AI friends in the metaverse. Lastly, and most importantly, this bill is just unconstitutional. In ruling against the Texas version of the App Store Accountability Act, a judge noted that it would severely restrict access to a, quote, vast universe of speech protected by the First Amendment.
As my colleague from Massachusetts said, laws that get struck down by the courts don't protect anybody. Now my amendment, the bipartisan Parents Over Platforms Act, is the better approach. Its age assurance requirements are less burdensome for users and parents, and it poses far less privacy risk than the App Store Accountability Act. The way it works is if you're a parent, you buy a phone for your child, you add your child's phone to the family account, you set your child's birthday, and that's it. Set and forget.
Thereafter, every time your child downloads an app, if it is an app that creates either an age-gated or age-differentiated experience, that app is liable for actually providing that age-gated or age-differentiated experience. If it's a gambling app, for example, and you're 18, you can't access it. If it's a social media app and you're 13 or hopefully someday 16, can't it. But the parents don't have to keep up with the tech companies. They set that birthday one time, and the age assurance signal in a privacy-protective manner is sent up through the firmware layer to the App Store thereafter.
It also properly scopes the definitions of both App Stores and covered applications to address those over-inclusive and under-inclusive problems that I mentioned earlier. So there's no loopholes for virtual reality and gaming that would benefit Meta. Finally, and unlike the App Store Accountability Act, my bill will survive strict scrutiny. It's a constitutional path forward on age verification so that we're not sitting here spinning our wheels in Congress just to have the courts strike it down. It does not restrict minors' access to the vast universe of speech by, for example, preventing them from accessing weather apps and news apps.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to oppose the App Store Accountability Acts, and I would ask the chairman for his commitment to continue working on these issues as we've discussed.
Speaker 2
Will I claim time, and then I'll yield to if that's okay. So, yes, as we talked before, we are gonna continue to work to make sure we have every level we can and that we can come to an agreement that our kids are protected. So I will agree. So I will yield to the gentleman from Michigan to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 35
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The deceptively named Parents Over Platforms Act should be aptly named Platforms Over Parents Act. Specifically, this bill or this amendment is unconstitutional. It only regulates apps that offer an age differentiated experience. Another way to say it regulates content.
The Platforms Over Parents Act is not a serious attempt at empowering parents and protecting kids. It's built for litigation. The App Store Accountability Act is constitutional. While my bill is inspired by laws in Utah and Texas, which have been challenged by big tech lobbyists, these are already in their earliest stages of litigation. We've already made meaningful changes to this bill to strengthen its constitutionality further, removing exceptions in this bill.
And, frankly, if you need any further endorsement, my bill is a clear choice of parents, 4,500 parents, and over 180 child safety organizations. Meanwhile, the Platforms Over Parents Act is supported by Google, Apple, and their trade associations. My bill requires privacy-preserving age verification at the App Store level. While the platforms over parents act relies largely on the antiquated self-reporting age, a method that has repeatedly failed to keep our children safe, my bill applies equally across the board and fairly to all apps providing consistent protections. The platforms over parents amendment only covers apps that provide a different experience for children and adults.
This creates a disincentive for platforms to provide safer, age-appropriate experiences. Allowing children to enter into binding contracts with multibillion-dollar corporations is the wrong answer. Children cannot consent. Can we all agree to that? And parents have a right to know.
We should also be able to agree to that. This bill does both. 82% of voters support the App Store Accountability Act, including 85% of parents. This bill transcends partisanship, and that's what I've heard all day. Put partisanship behind us, and move forward in the best interest of our children.
77% of Democrats and 90% of Republicans agree with this. 80% of independents agree with this bill. These are things that are common sense. It will survive scrutiny, and it's based on the reality that we currently face. So, again, mister chairman, I am in opposition to this amendment.
When parents grant consent to allow their kids to download an app, the bill puts the app on notice that they're dealing with a minor, all in privacy-protective manners. By contrast, the platforms over parents act codifies the failed status quo where kids click through self-declared age boxes to access apps without parental permission. I urge my colleagues again to reject this amendment and support the underlying bill.
Speaker 2
So it's back, it's my time, and I can guarantee everybody in here that big tech, however you wanna define, is opposed to your bill. I can tell you that because I've all heard from them. So I will yield back. And is there a further discussion? Gentlemen from California is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 13
I appreciate it. A number of remarks in there are inaccurate. Number one being that kids themselves can swipe through the birthday and age assurance signal. That's just false. Parents are in the driver's seat on this.
But the number one thing I wanna just zero in on, first of all, if this is a bipartisan approach, why is it not a bipartisan bill? It's a partisan bill, whereas my alternative is a bipartisan approach. But secondly, would the gentleman from Michigan care to comment about why his bill includes whether apps for intrusive age verification procedures but exempts virtual reality? Does the gentleman not think that virtual reality apps might pose a risk to youth online and should, in fact, be subject to age signals? Or does he trust that the Mark Zuckerberg metaverse is gonna be a place where kids can thrive without any parental oversight?
Speaker 13
Be held accountable. So why are you exempting, why is the gentleman from Michigan exempting his metaverse from this bill?
Speaker 35
That we are not exempting them from this bill. We are going to be working together to address that issue.
Speaker 35
But the one bill cannot, it was asked a question, I'm answering it? Hey. The one bill cannot solve all the problems that have been broken by the status quo.
Speaker 13
Can I ask the counsel? Under this bill's the way this bill is drafted, does it create an exemption for third party app stores that are virtual reality app stores? Does it cover virtual reality app stores?
Speaker 28
Sir, there is no definition of third-party app store or third-party service provider.
Speaker 13
I don't know what that answer means. What I can say is, and as the gentleman from Michigan affirmed because he said he was gonna be working on this, is as this bill is drafted, virtual reality apps are totally exempt, as are, by the way, side loaded apps or website access or browser accessed apps. This is a meta-sized loophole. They literally renamed the company Meta because they believe in the metaverse, and they want every kid to be putting on an Oculus headset and go into the metaverse and make AI bot friends. And that's Mister Zuckerberg's ideal for a, you know, dystopian future for our children to grow up in.
And that is why this is the preferred bill for Meta, because it exempts exactly their business model. My bill expressly prevents that from happening. It makes clear that, hey. If you wanna download a weather app, that's fine. If you're trying to download Meta's online virtual reality app, that is, it has to be liable for the age signal.
I yield back to the gentleman from California.
Speaker 2
Gentleman yields back. Is there any further discussion of the amendment?
Speaker 27
We keep going back and forth, rather it's this bill or others. And we're picking winners and losers, whether it is tech or trial lawyers. And, again, neither is the culprit independently. Tech companies bring positive things to the table. But what we're attempting to do in haste is ignoring the voices of all the parents, of all the advocates.
I again urge us to pump our brakes, and let's get this right. To demonize either side is not wise. Technology, when applied appropriately, is not bad. In fact, it's very good. Tech companies by themselves are not bad.
Loopholes are. Forgiving them for not tightening the loopholes and making sure that we're protecting our young people is bad. Moving hastily through these measures without carefully exploring all of the ramifications, or, as we say in these bodies, unintended consequences. When we move too fast, when we ignore the voices of the victims, when we fail to look at the science, when we fail to work together. We club everything together, the good, the bad, the ugly, and we move it forward for the sake of doing something.
That's not smart. We need to be working with tech. We need to be working with advocates. We need to be working democrats and republicans together to not come up with a fast solution that fails, but a solid solution that encompasses all of the risks. Again, I ask my colleagues, pump the brakes, and let's do this right.
Not fast, not party-driven, not partisan, but right, inclusive, and secure. I yield.
Speaker 2
Jim O'Neill's back. Is there further discussion? Seeing none, the vote occurs on the amendment. A roll call has been requested, and the clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 14
Mister Lotta votes no. Mr. Griffith. Mister Billorakis. Mr. Hudson. Mr. Carter of Georgia.
Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Mr Palmer. Mister Dunn, Mister Dunn votes no. Mister Crenshaw, mister Joyce, mister Joyce votes no. Mister Weber, Mister Weber votes no.
Mister Allen, Mister Balderson. Mister Balderson votes no. Mr. Fulcher. Mister Fulcher votes no. Mister Pfluger.
Missus Harshbarger. Missus Harshbarger votes no. Missus Miller Meeks. Missus Miller-Meeks votes no. Missus Kamick?
Mister Obernotti? Mister Obernotti votes no. Mr. James? Mr. James votes no. Mister Bentz votes no.
Missus Houchin, mister Fry, miss Lee, miss Lee votes no. Mister Langworthy, Mister Cain? Mister Cain votes no. Mister Rule? Mister Rule votes no.
Mister Evans? No. Mr Evans votes no. Mister Goldman? Mister Goldman?
Mister Goldman votes no. Mrs. Fedorchak? Mrs. Fedorchak votes no.
Mister Polon? Mister Polon votes aye. Mr. Get? Miss Diguet votes aye.
Miss Shakowski? Aye. Miss Shakowski votes aye. Miss Masui? Aye.
Miss Masui votes aye. Miss Castor? Mister Tonko? Aye. Mister Tonko votes aye.
Miss Clark?
Speaker 14
Miss Clark votes aye. Mister Ruiz? Aye. Mister Ruiz votes aye. Mister Peters?
Mister Peters votes aye. Missus Dingle? Missus Dingle votes aye. Mister Vizi? Miss Kelly?
Miss Kelly votes aye. Miss Baragon? Miss Baragon votes aye. Mister So? Mister So votes aye.
Miss Schrier? Miss Schrier votes, I. Miss Treyhan? Miss Treyhan votes, I. Miss Fletcher?
I. Miss Fletcher votes, I. Miss Ocasio-Cortez? Mister Achen Claus? Mister Achen Claus votes aye.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana? Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Menendez? Aye. Mr. Menendez votes aye.
Mister Mullen? Mister Mullen votes aye. Mister Lanzman, miss McCollin, miss McCollin votes aye. Chairman Guthrie votes,
Speaker 2
Miss Kamek? Missus Kamek votes no. Miss Castor? Miss Castor votes aye. Mister Lansman?
Speaker 2
Is anyone seeking the clerk for a report? So we're gonna go right into another roll call. So if I can say, so the clerk will report?
Speaker 2
The amendment is not agreed to. Is there a further amendment? If no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment in the nature of a subsidy. We're gonna do the amendment. So it'll be a voice vote.
All those in favor shall signify by saying aye. Aye. All those, no? No. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The question now occurs in adopting HR 3149 as amended, a roll call has been requested, and the clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 14
Mister Lara. Mister Lara votes aye. Mister Griffith? Mister Griffith votes. Mister Belaracus?
Mister Belaracus votes. I. Mister Hudson? Mr. Carter of Georgia? I. Mister Carter of Georgia votes I.
Mister Palmer? Mister Palmer votes. I. Mister Dunn? Mister Dunn votes. I. Mister Crenshaw?
Mister Joyce? Mister Joyce votes. I. Mister Weber? Mister Weber votes. Mr Allen?
Mr. Allen votes aye. Mister Balderson? Mr Balderson votes aye. Mister Folger? Mister Folger?
Missus Harshbarger. Missus Harshbarger votes aye. Missus Miller Meeks. Missus Miller Meeks votes aye. Missus Kameck votes aye.
Mister Obernotti? Mister Obernoti votes aye. Mr James? Mister James votes aye. Mister Bentz?
Mister Bentz votes aye. Missus Houchin? Mister Fry? Miss Lee? Miss Lee votes aye.
Mister Langworthy? Mr. Cain? Mr. Cain votes aye. Mister Ruley? Mister Ruley votes aye.
Mr. Evans? Aye. Mr Evans votes aye. Mister Goldman? Mr. Goldman votes aye.
Missus Fedorchak? Aye. Missus Fedorchak votes aye. Mister Polon? No.
Mister Polon votes no. Mister Get? Mister Get? No. Mister, get votes no.
Miss Shakowski? No. Miss Shakowski votes no. Miss Massui? No.
Miss Massui votes no. Miss Castor? Yes. Miss Castor votes no. Mr Tonko?
No. Mister Tonko votes no. Miss Clark? Miss Clark votes no. Mister Ruiz?
Mister Ruiz votes no. Mister Peters? Mister Peters votes no. Missus Dingle? Missus Dingle votes no.
Mister Fezi? Miss Kelly? Miss Kelly votes no. Miss Baragon? Miss Baragon votes no.
Mister So? Mister So to votes no. Miss Schrier? Miss Schrier votes no. Miss Treyhan?
Miss Treyhan votes no. Miss Fletcher? Miss Fletcher votes no. Miss Ocasio-Cortez? Mister Castillo Cortez votes no.
Mister Ackinglaus? No. Mister Ackinglaus votes no. Mr. Carter of Louisiana? Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes no.
Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez votes no. Mister Mullen? Mister Mullen votes no.
Mister Lansman? Mister Lansman votes no. Miss McCollin? Miss McCollin votes no. Flieger first.
Chairman Guthrie? Aye. Chairman Guthrie votes Mr. Fluger? Mister Fluger votes aye. Mister Houchin?
Aye. Missus Houchin votes aye.
Speaker 2
The ayes have it, the bill is adopted. Alright. I wanna make an announcement to everyone about the next agenda item. I wanna thank everyone today for their passion and engagement. And as I said, as I started, all of us wanna protect kids.
All of us wanna protect kids. Since we've been here today, our staff have continued to work toward a bipartisan agreement, and both sides feel there's been substantial progress towards a path forward. To that end, I have decided that we will not consider COPPA today, and our staff will continue to work in the coming days. And I really appreciate my friend from New Jersey and our staff and our ongoing efforts to protect kids online. So we will now move to the energy bills.
So thanks for I know the gentle lady from Florida pointed out what happened this morning in the senate. We appreciate that. So we'll move to the energy bills. Now I said this. Votes will be in 45 minutes.
The energy bills are five bills, and my understanding is they've all been agreed to. So let's take that under if we don't get it done at in by votes, we'll have to come back. So the chair calls up HR 7258 and asks the clerk to report. HR
Speaker 2
Without objection, the first one of the bill is dispensed with, the bill will be open for amendment at any point, so ordered. Is there anybody seeking to be recognized on the bill? The general lady from Florida, you're recognized for five minutes to speak.
Speaker 2
Order in the room. Please order in the room. Thank you. Is there a name? Alright.
Gentle lady from Florida, you are recognized to speak on the bill.
Speaker 42
Mister chairman, I am proud to lead HR 7258. The Energy Emergency Leadership Act.
Speaker 2
Lady was well, let's order in the room. I know we've gotta switch quickly, but if we can do it quietly, so the gentlelady has the right to be heard. Gentlelady's recognized.
Speaker 42
I am proud to lead HR 7258, the Energy Emergency Leadership Act, alongside my friend Mister Landsman from Ohio. I also wanna thank Mister Wahlberg of Michigan and Mister Balderson of Ohio for their cosponsorship, as well as Chairman Guthrie for including it in today's markup. In February, HR 7258 passed out of the subcommittee on energy by unanimous consent. The bill was passed by unanimous consent because both sides of the aisle understand how important it is to ensure transparency for those who are defending our electric grid. Today, the United States is experiencing record high energy demand driven by rapid advances in artificial intelligence and data centers, renewed domestic manufacturing, and widespread electrification across our economy.
Meeting this demand safely and reliably requires not only robust generation capacity, but also a secure and resilient electric grid. At the same time, our electric grid faces an increasingly complex threat landscape. State sponsored cyber threats like Volt Typhoon have actively targeted the US critical infrastructure, including our electric grid. These are real and ongoing threats from foreign adversaries seeking to undermine our national security and economic stability. In recent years, we've also seen a significant rise in physical attacks on our electric grid, such as deliberate acts of vandalism and sabotage.
And for those of us from Florida, the need for strong energy emergency leadership is not theoretical. It's something we see firsthand. After major hurricanes like Ian and Irma, millions of Americans can lose power overnight. Rapid coordination between the federal government, utilities, and state emergency officials becomes essential to restoring electricity and protecting public safety. That is why HR 7258, the Energy Emergency Leadership Act, is so important.
This legislation strengthens accountability within the Department of Energy by ensuring that the department's energy emergency and cybersecurity responsibilities are led by a Senate-confirmed assistant secretary. Establishing this leadership in statute ensures that energy security receives the sustained focus it deserves. By elevating this role, the Energy Emergency Leadership Act will ensure the department has the focused and accountable leadership to better protect the public from fuel and electricity supply disruptions against all hazards, whether natural or man-made, including emerging threats from our foreign adversaries to the electric grid. This bill will ensure the department carries out its responsibilities by improving coordination, ensuring more effective interagency collaborations, and increasing accountability to Congress. At the end of the day, this is a practical and bipartisan solution.
It doesn't create new bureaucracy. It simply ensures that when an energy emergency happens, there is clear leadership responsible for coordinating the federal response and protecting the reliability of our energy system. I thank my colleagues and cosponsors for their support, and I urge members of this committee to support HR 7258 and advance our nation's ability to protect its energy future. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 26
Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Gentlemen's recognized. I moved to strike the last word in support of the Energy Emergency Leadership Act.
Speaker 26
The bill, as my colleague mentioned, is a bipartisan effort to amend the Department of Energy Organization Act to ensure that the functions of what is now the Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response are assigned to one of DOE's eight assistant secretaries. As threats to our critical infrastructure continue to grow, this legislation takes an important step toward protecting our communities and maintaining reliable energy delivery. For these reasons, I support the legislation, and encourage my colleagues to do the same. I yield back.
Speaker 34
Gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on the bill? Seeing none, the vote now occurs on the bill. And since it's final passage, we will have a roll call vote. Clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 14
Mister Lara? Mister Bilaraukes? Yes. Bilaraukes votes aye. Mister Griffith?
Aye. Mr. Griffith votes aye. Mister Hudson? Mister Carlos Georgia? Mister Carlos Georgia votes aye.
Mr Palmer? Aye. Mr. Palmer votes aye. Mister Dunn? Aye.
Mr. Dunn votes aye. Mister Crenshaw? Mr. Joyce? Mr. Joyce votes aye. Mister Weber?
Mister Weber votes aye. Mr Allen? Mister Balderson? Mr Balderson votes aye. Mister Folter.
Mister Folter votes aye. Mister Fluger. Missus Harshbarger. Missus Harshbarger votes aye. Missus Miller Meeks.
Missus Kamick? Mister Obernoti? Mister Obernoti votes aye. Mr. James? Mister James votes aye.
Mister Bentz? Mister Bentz votes aye. Missus Houchin? Missus Houchin votes aye. Mr Fry?
Miss Lee? Miss Lee votes aye. Mister Langworthy? Aye. Mr. Langworthy votes aye.
Mr. Cain? Mister Woolly? Aye. Mister Woolly votes aye. Mister Evans?
Aye. Mister Evans votes aye. Mister Goldman? Mister Goldman votes aye. Mrs.
Fedorchak? Mrs. Fedorchak votes aye. Mister Pelon? Mister Pelon votes aye.
Mister Ghett? Mister Ghett votes aye. Miss Shakowski? Aye. Miss Shakowski votes aye.
Miss Masui? Miss Masui votes aye. Miss Castor? Miss Castor votes aye. Mister Tonko?
Miss Clark? Miss Clark? Miss Clark votes aye. Mister Ruiz? Mr. Ruiz votes aye.
Mr Peters? Mister Peters votes aye. Missus Dingle? Missus Dingle votes aye. Mister Fezi?
Mister Fezi votes aye. Miss Kelly? Aye. Miss Kelly votes aye. Miss Baragon?
Aye. Miss Baragon votes aye. Mister So? Mister So votes aye. Miss Schrier?
Miss Schrier votes aye. Miss Treyhan? Miss Treyhan votes aye. Miss Fletcher? Miss Fletcher votes aye.
Miss Ocasio-Cortez? Miss Ocasio Cortez votes aye. Mister Acasio Cortez? Mister Achenclaus votes aye. Mister Carter of Louisiana?
Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mister Mollin? Mister Mollin votes aye. Mister Landsman?
Mister Landsman votes aye. Miss McCollin? Miss McCollin votes aye. Chairman Guthrie? Chairman Guthrie votes aye.
Alright.
Speaker 14
Meeks? Miss Miller-Meeks votes aye. Mr Allen? Mr. Allen votes aye. Miss Kamek?
Miss Kamek votes aye. Mister Tonko. Mister Tonko is not recorded. Mister Tonko votes. I.
Speaker 14
Mr. Carter of Louisiana is not recorded. Mister Carter of Louisiana votes aye.
Speaker 34
50 eyes, zero nose. The bill is recommended for the floor. Chair calls up HR 7266 and asks the clerk to report. HR 72 66. A bill.
Speaker 14
to amend the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to reauthorize the rural and municipality.
Speaker 34
is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any time. So ordered. Miss Miller Meeks is recognized for five minutes to speak on her bill.
Speaker 39
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My legislation, the Rural and Municipal Utility Cybersecurity Act, which I'm proud to lead with Congresswoman McClellan, is a bipartisan bill to reauthorize and strengthen a critical program that helps rural and municipal electric utilities defend against growing cybersecurity threats to our nation's energy grid. As cyber attacks on critical infrastructure become more sophisticated and frequent, this bill ensures rural electric cooperatives, public power, and other small utilities have access to advanced cybersecurity tools, technical assistance, and grant funding to protect, detect, respond to, and recover from cyber threats. In Iowa's 1st district, rural electric cooperatives serve ratepayers across 20 counties and face the same threats as major metropolitan systems but with fewer resources. This legislation simply reauthorizes the rural and municipal utility advanced cybersecurity grant and technical assistance program and authorizes $250,000,000 over five years to deploy advanced cybersecurity technologies and support participation in information sharing programs.
At a time when cybersecurity tax on our critical infrastructure are escalating, and we have not yet authorized an appropriations bill for DHS, small and rural utilities need resources to defend against nation state actors and sophisticated threats. This bill provides that support. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mister chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 34
General, lady yields back. Anyone else wishing to be recognized? Recognize the general lady from Virginia for her five minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 29
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The rural municipal utility cybersecurity act represents the sort of bipartisan work that is important for the security and stability of the American grid, and the safety of the American people. This bill reauthorizes the RMUC program, a vital program that helps rural and small municipal utilities protect themselves against an ever-multiplying number of cybersecurity threats that could prove severely disruptive to these communities, which are too often under-resourced and lack the support necessary to defend against malign actors targeting important infrastructure services. This bill will fill those gaps and ensure rural and small municipal communities can face the challenges of our increasingly digital and interconnected world. And by hardening some of the most vulnerable targets in our power system, the bill will bolster our cybersecurity defenses for the entire nation's grid, and also strengthen the RMUC program by allowing the Department of Energy additional flexibility in the way that it structures technical assistance and financial awards, allowing small utilities and cooperatives even greater access.
I want to thank my colleague from Iowa, Miss Miller Meeks, for working together to advance this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I yield back.
Speaker 2
General Lady yields back, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Doctor Joyce, is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 3
As we work to address the issue of cybersecurity for our critical infrastructure, it's important that we ensure smaller communities are not left behind. To that end, I'm glad to see HR 7266, the Rural and Municipal Utility Cybersecurity Act under consideration today. This bill will help close the resource gap, allowing smaller utilities and rural electric co-ops to protect themselves against cybersecurity threats. This is an incredibly important issue. I applaud my colleagues Representative Miller Meeks and Representative McClellan for their work on this bipartisan legislation, and thank Chairman Guthrie for including this bill in our markup today.
Electrons do not flow solely to one part or another. And in the true tradition of energy and commerce on both sides of the aisle, this is bipartisan legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this necessary piece of legislation. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen, yields back. Is there further discussion? Seeing none. Okay. We open, and then you're done.
The question now occurs on adopting 7266.
Speaker 2
In favor. All right. We have roll call has been requested, and the clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 14
Mr. Griffith. Mister Griffith votes I. Mister Belaracus. Mister Belaracus votes aye. Mister Hudson?
Mister Hudson votes aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia? Aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes aye. Mr Palmer?
Mr Palmer votes aye. Mr Dunn. Mr. Dunn votes aye. Mr. Crenshaw. Mr. Joyce.
Mister Joyce votes aye. Mr. Weber. Mister Weber votes aye. Mister Allen, Allen votes aye. Mister Balderson, Mister Balderson votes aye.
Mister Fulcher, Mister Fulcher votes aye. Mister Fluger, Miss Harshbarger? Missus Harshbarger votes aye. Missus Miller Meeks? Missus Kamick?
Missus Miller Meeks votes aye. Missus Kamick? Missus Kamick votes aye. Mister Obernotti? Mister Obernotti votes aye.
Mr. James? Mr. James votes aye. Mr Bentz? Mr. Bentz votes aye. Missus Houchin?
Aye. Missus Houchin votes aye. Mr Fry? Miss Lee? Miss Lee votes aye.
Mister Langworthy? Mr. Langworthy votes aye. Mister Cain? Mister Ruley? Aye.
Mister Ruley votes aye. Mister Evans? Aye. Mr Evans votes aye. Mister Goldman?
Mr Goldman votes aye. Mrs. Fedorchak? Mr. Fedorchak votes aye.
Mister Polon? Aye. Mister Polon votes aye. Mr. Gat?
Mr. Gat votes aye. Miss Shakowski? Miss Shakowski votes aye. Miss Masui?
Miss Masui votes aye. Miss Castor? Miss Castor votes aye. Mister Tonko? Mister Tonko votes aye.
Miss Clark? Mister Ruiz? Mister Ruiz votes aye. Mister Peters? Missus Dingle?
Missus Dingle votes aye. Mister Visi? Mister Visi votes aye. Miss Kelly? Miss Paragon?
Miss Paragon votes aye. Mister So? Mister So votes aye. Miss Schrier? Miss Schrier votes I.
Miss Treyhan? Miss Treyhan votes. I. Miss Fletcher? Miss Ocasio-Cortez? Mr. Castillo Cortez votes aye.
Mister Achengloss? Mister Achengloss votes aye. Mister Carter of Louisiana? Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes aye. Mister Menendez?
Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mister Mullin? Mister Mullin votes aye. Mister Lansman? Mister Lansman votes aye.
Miss McCollin? Miss McCollin votes aye. Chairman Guthrie? I. Chairman Guthrie votes aye.
Mister Lotta is not recorded. Mister Lotta votes aye. Mister Cain? Mr. Cain votes aye. Miss Clark?
Miss Clark is not recorded.
Speaker 2
Miss Clark votes aye. Anyone else seeking to call the row, enter the row? Seeing none, the clerk will report.
Speaker 14
Missus, just in time. Is not recorded. Fletcher's not Missus Fletcher votes aye. So the clerk will report? Mister chairman, on that vote, there were 49 ayes and zero noes.
Speaker 2
That objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point, so ordered. Does anybody speak to recognize the bill? Mister Lata, why does the gentleman from Ohio seek recognition?
Speaker 4
Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The Secure Grid Act, which I've sponsored with my good friend, the general lady from California's 7th District. State Energy Security Plans or SEPs, formalized through amendments to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act in 2021, ensure states are methodically accounting for potential threats and vulnerabilities in their respective energy networks. These plans allow states to work with DOE and private sector partners to put processes in place for threat mitigation, as well as response efforts in the event of disruption to energy supplies. While the initial exercise of SEP program has a meaningful assisted states in securing energy systems, there is room for improvement to enhance their visibility and to consider disparate threats facing the sector.
HR 72 57 improves the state energy security planning process by taking a more holistic approach to the potential threats and solutions for more resilient, critical infrastructure. Throughout the 119th Congress, this committee has held several hearings with experts and administration officials to examine the state of our nation's energy systems. Know that the everyday lives of Americans and businesses are wholly reliant on a secure, reliable, and affordable energy system. We also know adversaries of nations and nefarious actors are actively seeking out vulnerabilities in our interconnected energy infrastructure to sow chaos and cause harm to everyday Americans. Given the decisive action taken by the Trump administration to address security threats in Iran, the need for cohesive steps is even more necessary.
Strong steps require proactive information sharing on threat analysis, constant vigilance, and clear visibility into the widening threat landscape. Through state energy security plans, state energy offices and their governors can put processes in place to detect, mitigate, and respond to potential attacks targeting critical infrastructure. This legislation would advance that approach by ensuring states consider the security and resilience of local distribution systems, as well as incorporating the expertise of grid component manufacturers and suppliers. HR 72 57 also incorporates language to ensure that governors remain ultimately responsible for the approval of their own state energy security plans. Given the state's authorities and understandings of how their own energy systems work, it's imperative that they are empowered to develop their own plans while working collaboratively with federal partners.
This legislation is another important step to securing our economic future and keeping the lights on for all Americans. And, mister chairman, there will be an amendment that will be offered by the general lady from the 7th district. And, in the interest of time, I am just going to ask my colleagues to support that amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
The gentleman yields back. The general lady from California, our purpose, seat recognition.
Speaker 2
The clerk will report. Is it to identify the amendment as a nature of a substitute?
Speaker 2
Without objection, I'm ready to amend, it's dispensed with, and the gentlelady from California is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
Speaker 37
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment makes minor but important changes, strengthening DOE's technical assistance program, clarifying the exploration provision, and requires MGAO to evaluate the effectiveness of the program before the next reauthorization. Some of the most devastating wildfires in California's history have been sparked by aging or unsecured power infrastructure, including the Easton fire in Los Angeles. At the same time, prolonged heat waves can stretch the California grid to the limit. Droughts can also reduce hydropower generation across the West, further straining our grid.
And winter storms bring torrential rains that can flood substations and take out power lines. There are solutions. We have to invest in our electric grid. It takes planning and preparation, and we need federal support and coordination across states and with the federal government. That's why I'm proud to work with Chairman Lotta on the Secure Grid Act.
The secure grid act provides federal funding for states to develop and implement energy security plans, working with the Department of Energy and the National Labs to identify, assess, and address any risk to the electric grid and make plans for grid emergencies. And this just isn't about resilience. Disruptions to the grid are costly. Wildfires are the primary driver around California's high electricity rates. A more secure grid can bring down costs for everyone.
So I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 2
And the lady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question occurs on the adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All in favor will say aye. Aye.
All opposed, no. The ayes have it. The question now occurs when adopted HR 7257 as amended, and a roll call has been requested. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 14
Lata votes, aye. Mister Griffith? Aye. Mr. Griffith votes aye. Mister Belaracus?
Aye. Mister Belaracus votes aye. Mister Hudson? Mister Hudson votes aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia?
Aye. Mister Carter of Georgia votes aye. Mr Palmer? Aye. Mr. Palmer votes aye.
Mister Dunn? Aye. Mr. Dunn votes aye. Mister Crenshaw? Mr. Joyce?
Aye. Mr. Joyce votes aye. Mr. Weber. Mister Weber votes. Mr. Allen.
Mister Allen votes. I. Mr Balderson. Mister Balderson votes yes. Mr. Fulcher. Mister Fulcher votes. I.
Mister Fluger. Missus Harshbarger. Missus Harshbarger votes I. This is Miller Meeks. Missus Miller Meeks votes I.
Missus Kamick. Missus Kamick votes. I. Mister Obernotti? Mr James? Mr. James votes aye.
Mister Bentz? Mr. Bentz votes aye. Missus Houchin? Missus Houchin votes aye. Mr Fry?
Miss Lee? Are you competitive? Miss Lee votes aye. Mister Langworthy? Mister Lang...
Langworthy votes aye. Mister Cain? Mr. Cain votes aye. Mister Ruley? Mr. Evans?
Mister Evans votes. I Mister Goldman? Mister Yes. Mister Vadorcek votes I. Mister Hi.
Mister Pelon votes aye. Mister Gat? Right. Mister Gat votes aye. Miss Shakowski?
Miss Shakowski votes aye. Miss Masui? Miss Masui votes aye. Miss Castor? Miss Castor votes aye.
Mister Tonko? Mister Tonko votes aye. Miss Clark? Miss Clark votes aye. Mister Ruiz?
Mister Ruiz votes aye. Mr Peters? Missus Dingle? Missus Dingle votes. I. Mister Visi?
Mister Visi votes I. Miss Kelly? Miss Paragon? Miss Paragon votes. I. Mister So?
Mister So to votes I. Miss Schrier. Miss Schrier votes I. Miss Treyhan. Miss Treyhan votes yes.
Miss Fletcher. Miss Fletcher votes yes. Miss Ocasio-Cortez. Mister Achengloss? Mister Achengloss votes aye.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana? Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mister Mullen?
Mister Mullen votes. Mister Lanzman? Mister Lanzman votes I. Miss McCollin? Miss McCollin votes I.
Chairman Guthrie? Chairman Guthrie votes I.
Speaker 2
Anyone else that takes the roll call? Seeing none, the clerk will report.
Speaker 2
The bill is adopted. The chair calls up HR 7272 and asked the clerk to report.
Speaker 2
No objection. The first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So, in order, does anyone seek?
Speaker 32
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna thank my friend from Michigan representative Deng for coleading HR 7272, the pipeline cybersecurity preparedness act, which unanimously passed through the energy subcommittee in February. The Department of Energy currently serves as the government's energy sector lead, coordinating efforts across energy infrastructure owners and operators, states, and federal agencies. In this role, DOE maintains visibility across the entire energy value chain, an essential part of its mission, while providing the technical expertise necessary to coordinate security and hazardous response across the sector. As the threats landscape evolves, cyberattacks on the US systems from adversarial nations and rogue actors alike are on the rise.
Given the unique risk that cyber threats pose to our energy infrastructure, we must strengthen information sharing and coordination practices in law, and we must do so quickly. That is why it is critical to advance HR seventy two seventy two. This bill would improve how the DOE works for others in the energy sector to ensure the security and resilience of pipelines and LNG facilities that our nation depends on for the reliable supply of fuels as well as electricity. Mister chairman, this bill leverages the department's vast technical capabilities to develop a program that improves the coordination and technical support needed to ensure timely, efficient, and effective efforts to secure our energy systems in response to disruptions. As I said in the committee's subcommittee markup, let me be crystal clear.
HR 72 72 does not create a regulatory program or authorize one. Collaboration with agencies like the Transportation Security Administration and utilizing their expertise will remain key. However, it is important to remember that the Department of Energy retains responsibility for the whole energy and power sector. It also already leads federal coordination on this very front. For any American watching this today, an attack on our infrastructure is not merely a hypothetical scenario, and the impacts would not be isolated.
An attack on a pipeline in Texas can be felt in Virginia at the gas pump. We experienced this firsthand when many gas stations along the Eastern Seaboard quite literally ran out of fuel in the aftermath of the Colonial Pipeline cyber attack. In the wake of a cyber attack, mister chairman, we need a direct, cohesive, whole-of-government response to go up through the chaos, and there's no better entity to lead that effort than the DOE. With that, mister chair, I urge my colleagues to vote for it, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen, yields back. Is there any further discussion? General lady from Michigan recognized and spoke on the bill.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanna thank my colleague from Texas, mister Weber, for his leadership on HR 7272, and I'm proud to co-lead this bipartisan legislation with him. This bill builds on the long-standing work this committee's done to strengthen coordination across our energy sector and ensure we are prepared to address evolving cyber and physical threats to our infrastructure. Cyber threats to our energy infrastructure are real, growing, and require action now, especially when it comes to protecting the pipelines that power our homes, businesses, manufacturers, and communities. It's important we act decisively to safeguard our critical infrastructure and national security, to protect our pipelines from cybersecurity threats.
By law, DOE serves as the energy sector risk management agency. Only DOE has the expertise, the relationships, and the ability to protect our pipeline systems. We have to ensure it can participate thoroughly in the pipeline cyberdefense. Our bipartisan legislation would strengthen the DOE's role in our pipeline cybersecurity and ensure that its experts are empowered to fully engage in federal coordination and work with industry to secure our pipelines. We must act decisively.
I urge my colleagues to support HR 7072, and I thank congressman Wember again for his leadership. Thank you. Yield back.
Speaker 2
The lady yields back. Is there further discussion? Seeing none. Oh, I'm sorry. Mister Carter from Louisiana. What purpose do you take recognition for?
Speaker 27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I represent Louisiana, home to one of the most robust pipeline networks in the country, and many of those pipelines run close to population centers that make them not only vital arteries for energy delivery, but also potential targets that, if disrupted, can put our communities and economics at dire risk. The 2021 colonial pipeline cyberattack demonstrated how a single incident can have a ripple effect across the entire community, disrupting supply, spiking prices, and instilling fear. Imagine the consequences of such an attack were to hit a major line in Louisiana. Our nation, our state's refineries, our petrochemical industry, and the families who live and work alongside this infrastructure would feel the impact immediately.
That's why efforts like this bill, the Pipeline Cybersecurity Act, are so important. America must improve coordination and information sharing across government and state entities, which in turn will make us better prepared to defend ourselves against the ever-evolving cyber attack tactics. For Louisiana, where energy infrastructure and communities live side by side, the stakes are simply too high to delay protecting our pipelines, our economy, and, most importantly, our people. Thank you, and I yield. I urge your full support for this measure.
Speaker 2
Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Seeing none, the clerk will call the row. No. Excuse me.
The question now occurs on adopting 7272. The clerk will call the row.
Speaker 14
Mr Lotta. Mister Lata votes. I. Mister Griffith? Mister Griffith votes. Mister Bilaracas?
Mister Bilaracas votes I. Mister Hudson? Mister Hudson votes. I. Mister Carter of Georgia? Aye.
Mister Carter of Georgia votes I. Mr Palmer? Aye. Mister Palmer votes aye. Mister Dunn?
Aye. Mr. Dunn votes aye. Mister Crenshaw? Mr. Joyce? Mister Joyce votes aye.
Mister Weber? Mister Weber votes aye. Mr Allen? Mr. Allen votes aye. Mister Baldurson?
Mister Baldurson votes aye. Mister Fulcher? Mister Fulcher votes aye. Mister Fluger? Mister Fluger votes aye.
Missus Harshbarger? Missus Miller Meeks? Missus Miller Meeks votes aye. Missus Kamick? Missus Kamick votes aye.
Mister Openulti? Mr James? Mr. James votes aye. Mr Bent? Mister Bent votes aye.
Missus Houchin? Missus Houchin votes aye. Mr Fry? Miss Lee? Miss Lee votes aye.
Mister Langworthy? Aye. Mister Langworthy votes aye. Mister Cain? Mr. Cain votes aye.
Mister Ruley? Mister Evans? Mister Evans votes aye. Mister Goldman? Mister Goldman votes aye.
Missus Fedorchak? Missus Fedorchak votes aye. Mister Polon? Mister Polon votes aye. Mister Ghett?
Mister Ghett votes aye. Miss Shukowski? Miss Shukowski votes aye. Miss Matsowie? Miss Matt Swee votes aye.
Miss Castor? Miss Castor votes aye. Mister Tonko? Mister Tonko votes aye. Miss Clark?
Miss Clark votes aye. Mister Ruiz? Mr. Ruiz votes aye. Mr Peters? Missus Dingle?
Missus Dingle votes aye. Mister Visi? Mister Visi votes aye. Miss Kelly? Miss Baragon?
Miss Baragon votes aye. Mister So? Mister So votes aye. Miss Schrier? Miss Schrier votes aye.
Miss Treyhan? Miss Treyhan votes aye. Miss Fletcher? Miss Fletcher votes aye. Miss Ocasio-Cortez?
Miss Ocasio-Cortez votes aye. Mister Achen Claus? Mister Carter of Mister Achen Claus votes aye. Mister Carter of Louisiana? Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes aye.
Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mister Mullen? Mister Mullen votes aye. Mister Lansman?
Mister Lansman votes aye. Miss McCullen? Miss McCullen votes aye. Chairman McGuthery? Jim McGuthery votes aye.
Miss Harshbarger? Miss Harshbarger is not recorded. Miss Harshbarger votes aye.
Speaker 2
Anyone else seeking to answer the roll call? Anyone on the Democrat side seeking to answer the roll call? Seeing none, the clerk will report.
Speaker 2
The bill is adopted. The chair calls up HR 7305 and asks the clerk to report. This will be our final bill.
Speaker 2
Without objection, the first hearing of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for a point at any point. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? Who's the bill?
Speaker 9
Thank you. The Energy Threat Analysis Center Act authorizes this cybersecurity initiative originally created by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. ETAC is designed to enhance the Department of Energy's emergency response capabilities. ETAC supports the department's ability to coordinate with other agencies, industries, national labs, and the intelligence community in the face of cybersecurity threats. The bill strengthens the department's ability to use public-private collaborations to analyze threats to the energy sector.
It helps secure our critical infrastructure and keep our neighbors safe from energy system threats. I wanna thank Representative Evans for co-leading the bill. He has a manager's amendment that will enhance the bill, make it even stronger. I urge everyone to support it, and I yield back. I yield to.
Speaker 16
As we modernize and digitize our energy systems, we must recognize that the threat landscape is evolving just as quickly. Cyberattacks, coordinated foreign interference, and emerging digital vulnerabilities pose real risks to our electric grid, energy generation facilities, and industrial operations. We cannot treat energy security as an afterthought. This bill renews and strengthens the Department of Energy's energy threat analysis center so it can better identify threats to our energy system, analyze risks, and improve coordination between the federal government and energy companies to prevent disruptions. For my district, this legislation has direct and immediate relevance.
Imperial County is home to Lithium Valley, a growing hub for geothermal energy production and domestic clean lithium extraction that is central to our nation's clean energy and battery supply chain. These facilities rely heavily on advanced digital control systems and grid connectivity to operate safely and efficiently. A cyber intrusion targeting operational technology could disrupt power generation, stall lithium processing, or create cascading impacts across California's energy system. At the same time, Imperial County is largely rural and geographically isolated. Our local utilities and operators do not always have the same cybersecurity resources as large cities.
The energy threat analysis center ensures that actionable threat intelligence flows quickly to communities like mine, not just to major urban hubs. That is why I support this bill, and I yield back to Congresswoman Castro.
Speaker 2
General, lady yields back. The gentleman from Colorado, what purpose do you take? Recognition?
Speaker 2
Okay. And then offer the amendment. Okay. Gentleman is recognized to speak on the bill.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the energy subcommittee ranking member for her partnership on our bill, the Energy Threat Analysis Center. ETAC plays an essential role in safeguarding critical infrastructure that ensures economic growth and national security. It brings together the Department of Energy, national labs, and private sector utilities, and it provides the early threat detection and coordinated analysis of threats to our energy generation and transmission networks. Colorado's own national lab of the Rockies, formerly NREL for my Coloradans, hosts ETAC and is leading the way in this vital work, which protects our infrastructure's reliability, security, and ultimately affordability.
We know that terrorism and sophisticated cyber threats are on the rise, and this mission is not abstract. It's urgent. I'm especially proud this bill passed the subcommittee unanimously, which is a clear sign that protecting our nation's energy systems is a shared priority. I urge my colleagues to maintain that bipartisan momentum and yield back.
Speaker 2
Is there further discussion? The gentleman from Colorado recognizes you have an amendment at the desk.
Speaker 2
That objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman from Colorado is recognized for five minutes to support the amendment.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment serves to clarify that the Department of Energy's contracting and transaction authorities clarify their authorities to carry out the vital mission of ETAC. The amendment authorizes the secretary to enter and perform cooperative agreements, contracts, grants, and similar transactions that may be necessary to carry out national security-related functions, and it clarifies the secretary may take action to facilitate participation with preapproved national security contracting mechanisms and expedited review procedures to accomplish this work on behalf of our communities. This clarity will improve the flexibility and implementation of the program, which currently operates under more cumbersome research-related contracting mechanisms, not the more appropriate mechanisms for national security work. I urge support for this amendment, and yield back.
Speaker 2
Jim, and yield back. Is there further discussion? Seeing none, the question recurs on adoption of the amendment. All those in favor shall signify by saying aye. Aye.
All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. The question now occurs on adopting H.R. 7305 as amended. All those in row cause may requested, and the clerk will call the row.
Speaker 14
Mr Lotta. Mister Lotta votes aye. Mister Griffith? Mr. Griffith votes aye. Mister Belarcas?
Mister Belaracus votes aye. Mister Hudson? Mister Hudson votes aye. Mister Carter of Georgia? Aye.
Mr. Carter of Georgia votes aye. Mr Palmer? Aye. Mr. Palmer votes aye. Mister Dunn?
Mr. Dunn votes aye. Mister Crenshaw? Mister Joyce? Mr. Joyce votes aye. Mister Weber?
Mister Weber votes aye. Mr Allen? Mr. Allen votes aye. Mister Balderson? Mister Balderson votes aye.
Mister Folter? Mister Folter votes aye. Mister Pfluger? Mister Pfluger votes aye. Missus Harshbarger?
Missus Harshbarger votes aye. Missus Miller Meeks? Missus Miller Meeks votes aye. Missus Kamick? Aye.
Missus Kamick votes aye. Mister Obernote? Mr James? Mr. James votes aye. Mister Bentz?
Mister Bentz votes. I. Missus Houchin? Missus Houchin votes. I. Mr Fry? Miss Lee?
Miss Lee votes. I. Mister Langworthy? Mister Langworthy votes. I Mr Cain? Mister Cain votes aye.
Mister Ruley? Mister Evans?
Speaker 14
Mr Evans votes aye. Mister Goldman? Mister Goldman votes aye. Missus Fudorcheck? Missus Fudorcheck votes aye.
Mister Polon? Mister Polon votes aye. Mister Ghett? Mister Ghett votes aye. Miss Shukowski?
Aye. Miss Shukowski votes aye. Miss Massui? Miss Massui votes aye. Miss Castor?
Miss Castor votes aye. Mister Tonko? Mister Tonko votes aye. Miss Clark? Miss Clark votes aye.
Mister Ruiz? Mister Ruiz votes aye. Mister Peters? Missus Dingle? Missus Dingle votes aye.
Mister Visi? Mister Visi votes aye. Miss Kelly? Miss Baragon? Mister So.
Mister So votes aye. Miss Schrier? Miss Schrier votes aye. Miss Treyhan? Miss Treyhan votes aye.
Miss Fletcher? Miss Fletcher votes aye. Miss Ocasio-Cortez? Miss Ocasio-Cortez?
Speaker 14
Yes. Miss Ocasio-Cortez votes aye. Mister Achenclaus? Mister Achenclaus votes aye. Mister Carter of Louisiana?
Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mister Mullen? Mister Mullen votes aye.
Mister Lansman? Mister Lansman votes aye. Miss McCollin? Miss McCollin votes aye. Chairman Guthrie?
Chairman Guthrie votes aye.
Speaker 2
Anyone seeking recognition of the vote? Oh, God. No. We're going to write after that. Anyone with the vote?
Seeing none, the clerk will report.
Speaker 2
The ayes have it. The bill is adopted. What person laid far to seek recognition?
Speaker 21
Yes. With, I have a unanimous consent request to insert into the record two items, the first being from this month. Trial lawyers make more campaign contributions than any other profession, with an analysis and a report by the Alliance for Consumer Protection talking about the shady trial lawyer pipeline and a continuing look at how trial lawyers boost left wing political efforts. And of the Democrat members today who attempted to gut our kids' online safety bill, 6 figures worth of campaign contributions are the average of what each accept with several members accepting over a half $1,000,000 from the trial attorneys in the last four years. And so I think it's important, mister chairman, that parents deserve to know who is going to bat for them and who is going to bat for the trial attorneys.
So with that, I submit these for the record.
Speaker 2
Without objection, staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes to the legislation approved by the committee today. So ordered. Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.