Markup of Twelve Pieces of Legislation
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 Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsFrank Pallone
And if we're going to be setting recycling policy, the Environmental Protection Agency should be taking the lead, not the Federal Trade Commission. Meanwhile, the Protect USA Act forces American companies to choose between complying with European sustainability regulations or violating the Act, which is an impossible choice. We should be focusing on working together with our allies to compete with China, not fighting one another. And finally, I was dismayed to see the RESET Act included on our agenda today. Not because we shouldn't always be thinking of how we can improve protections for kids, we should.
But the amended RESET Act text offered today directly contradicts the bipartisan Kids Act, a comprehensive online safety package that we passed through the committee as well as the House on suspension. So I'm concerned this bill will move us backward, not forward, on real solutions that can become law. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Gus Bilirakis
Gentleman yields back. Appreciate that. The chair reminds members that pursuant to the committee rules, all members' opening statements will be part of the record. Are there further opening statements? Yes, Mr. Mullin, you're recognized for five minutes for your opening statement.
Three minutes, actually, for your opening statement.
Kevin Mullin
Thank you, Chair Bilirakis and Ranking Member Schakowsky for including my bill, HR 7945, the Nitrous Oxide Safety Act, in today's markup. Too many families have been devastated by the impacts of nitrous oxide misuse. We need to end consumer sales of this dangerous and addictive substance. Inhaling the gas just once can lead to death or devastating health impacts that can change a person's life forever. I'd like to recognize the dozens of family members from across the country who have taken it upon themselves to organize and come to DC tomorrow to advocate for passage of the Nitrous Oxide Safety Act.
Some are parents and loved ones of the victims pictured behind me. By passing the Nitrous Oxide Safety Act, we can limit consumer access and help prevent families from experiencing the loss of a loved one due to nitrous oxide misuse. And I'll have more to say on the topic later. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Gus Bilirakis
Appreciate that. Anyone else on the Republican side that wishes to have an opening statement? Democratic side? Yes, you're recognized. You're recognized, Ms. Clarke, for three minutes.
Yvette Clarke
Thank you very much. Good morning and thank you once again Chairman Bilirakis and Ranking Member Schakowsky for holding this markup today. While I don't agree with every bill before our subcommittee today, I'm happy to see some bills put forward that would address real world issues impacting consumers. Bills like the Strategic Task Force on Scam Prevention Act and the Main Event Ticketing Act provide essential protection for consumers who have fallen victim to complex or insistent scams or folks who pay higher ticketing prices when they have to fight bots for tickets to their favorite events. I applaud my colleagues who have taken up these initiatives, but we must also admit where government falls short.
The Trump administration in their Project 2025 handbook has systematically undermined the FTC and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the very agencies set out to protect Americans from scams and ensure a fair market. For the last 30 years, the FTC has taken bipartisan action to protect Americans from deceptive practices, bringing cases against scammers who impersonate businesses or con artists who target senior citizens. It's simple. Consumer protection does not exist without the agencies equipped and ready to enforce. My Republican colleagues need to acknowledge that Project 2025 was not a lie.
The Trump administration is directly inhibiting consumer rights and protections. And while we can continue to put forth well-intentioned legislation, it will ultimately fall short if we lack proper enforcement agencies. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 9
And now we'll go ahead and we'll call up H.R. 10170 and ask the clerk to report.
Speaker 8
H.R. 10170, a bill to require the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study on the marketplace for advanced memory technology.
Gus Bilirakis
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 anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? Okay, if no one needs to be recognized, oh yes, okay. Mr. Goldman, you're recognized.
Daniel Goldman
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I speak in support of the Memory Chip Competitiveness Assessment Act led by my colleague Ms. Miller-Meeks and Mr. Soto. Memory chips are foundational to the modern economy, powering everything from automobiles and medical devices to consumer electronics and industrial equipment. The rapid growth of AI is driving unprecedented demand for advanced memory chips. Recent supply constraints have threatened this critical industry and highlighted vulnerabilities in our semiconductor supply chains.
The Memory Chip Competitiveness Assessment Act directs the Department of Commerce to evaluate the advanced memory chip market, looking at demand, prices, supply, shortages, trends, and the influence of countries of concern. It also requires Commerce to identify any laws, regulations that are slowing down the development and supply of these chips and explore ways to fix them. This information will help policymakers strengthen America chip production, build a more reliable supply chain, and reduce our dependence on risky foreign sources. I'm proud to support this bill and again I thank the sponsors for the bipartisan leadership on this important issue and I yield back. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Gus Bilirakis
I thank the gentleman. Now recognize Mr. Soto for his, for five minutes on this particular bill.
Darren Soto
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. America must continue to lead in the artificial intelligence race, otherwise our rivals will certainly fill in the void. The bipartisan Memory Chips Competitiveness Act with Representative Miller-Meeks and I is trying to do just that, to help make sure we're continuing to be competitive in AI going forward. The pandemic exposed the U.S.'s lack of chip production capacity. We saw cars, computers, electronics, all lacking chips over that period of time and this committee came together in a bipartisan fashion to pass the CHIPS Act to boost that capacity and research.
We're proud in Central Florida at NeoCity to develop aerospace and AI microchips, and now we have this next generation of efforts. The efforts to develop AI and make sure we have enough advanced memory chips. These are critical for the development of these supercomputers. They feed massive amounts of data to process information instantly and prevent expensive computing cores from sitting idle. The U.S. is facing a severe memory chip shortage for AI because domestic production of advanced high-bandwidth memory, HBM, will not reach mass volume until late 2028, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Our bill will help the U.S. Department of Commerce to assess the market here in the United States for the advanced memory chips and to report to Congress. It will help us boost capacity, find efficiencies, continue research and development, and ensure our global competitiveness. And I'm proud to be able to help sponsor this important bipartisan bill. And I yield back.
Gus Bilirakis
The gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on the bill? Seeing none, are there any amendments to the bill? Seeing none, the question now occurs on forwarding H.R. 10170 to the full committee. All those in favor say aye.
Aye. Those opposed say no. Okay, the ayes have it and the bill's agreed to and forward to the full committee. Okay. Now we'll call up, the chair calls up H.R. 10158 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 8
H.R. 10158, a bill to require the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study on the national and economic security risks.
Gus Bilirakis
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 anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? Is Ms. Dingell here? Oh, okay.
All right. Anyone else need to be recognized on the bill? Any further discussion on the bill? Are there any amendments to the bill? Seeing none, the question now occurs on forwarding H.R. 10158 to the full committee.
All those in favor say aye. Aye.
Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, the ayes have it and the bill is agreed to and forward to the full committee. Okay, the chair calls up HR 10152 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 11
HR 10152, a bill to direct the Secretary of Commerce to support the adoption and use of...
Gus Bilirakis
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 anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? Yes, yes.
You're recognized, you're recognized.
Gabe Evans
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm proud to speak in strong support of my bill today, the Open Source AI Leadership Act. This legislation targets a serious problem. While American companies are leading the world in proprietary AI models, we're increasingly falling behind the Communist Chinese in the market for open source and open weight alternatives. Today, companies such as Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google are household names. Less well known are the open source and open weight AI models that are being adopted across the economy and around the world because they're cheaper, customizable, and provide greater control to organizations.
Unfortunately, the companies that are leading in the open source and open weight models are Alibaba, DeepSeek, and Moonshot, and these are deeply intertwined with the Chinese Communist Party. My bill tackles this issue head-on by promoting the proliferation and adoption of innovative American open source models while encouraging common sense guardrails to protect users. The bill does a couple of things. First, it directs the Secretary of Commerce to take action to support the adoption of US open source and open weight AI models, including by appointing a single point of contact in the department to promote American alternatives to China. Second, it mandates that the Commerce Department assess the risks associated with the adoption of Chinese open source and open weight models and make these reports publicly available.
As we heard in the hearing on this, small businesses and startups, innovators, entrepreneurs, job creators here in the US are looking for cost-effective solutions to compete in a global economy and they are increasingly using these open source and open weight models, which means it's essential to know what security risks they pose to our small businesses and our job creators here in the United States. And I'll remind my colleagues that just a few weeks ago, we saw news break about how high-end United Kingdom Navy drone boats, special forces technology, were found to be secretly transmitting data to the Chinese. We know that this is a threat and so that's why American leadership in the AI race, especially the open source component of it, is so essential. After the legislative hearing where the Open Source AI Leadership Act was discussed, an open letter signed by some of the most important and innovative companies in the world was published, urging the United States to prioritize the development of open source AI. Companies like NVIDIA, Microsoft, and IBM put aside their differences to make a unified call for legislation just like this.
And I'll close my remarks by quoting from that letter directly. The age of AI can be one of prosperity. With the right choices, open weight AI can expand opportunity, strengthen competition, extend American technological leadership, mitigate risk, and ensure that the benefits of this extraordinary technology are shared broadly across our economy. The future is worth building and the United States should lead in building it. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill that protects American jobs and American leadership, and I yield back.
Gus Bilirakis
Thank you, I thank Mr. Evans, and does anyone else seek recognition on the bill? For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?
Frank Pallone
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I share the goal of this legislation to promote America's leadership in open-source artificial intelligence. Open-source software has been an essential component of US technological leadership since the internet revolution by driving innovation, efficiency, and security, and we should continue that leadership into the age of AI. However, I am concerned that this bill gives the Secretary of Commerce the open-ended authority to take, and I quote, "any action as appropriate" to address barriers and promote US open-source AI without adequately tailoring such authority. And I have concerns about this vague language and how it can be abused by Commerce Secretary Lutnick.
I also think this bill could benefit from additional stakeholder feedback and edits, including a more nuanced discussion of the potential risk posed by domestic open-source AI models, not just those posed by foreign adversary open-source models, which I'm glad to see addressed, as well as consideration of the differences between open-weight and open-source models. Ultimately, I'm hopeful that we can work across the aisle to make this bill bipartisan in the future, and I look forward to working with stakeholders and my colleagues on this important issue. Today, I will be voting no on HR 10152, the bill, but despite my no vote today, I remain committed to continuing to work on this issue to reach a compromise. And so I thank you, and I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
Gus Bilirakis
I thank the gentleman. Anyone else seek recognition? Ms. Trahan, you're recognized for five minutes on the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So it's great to see this subcommittee considering serious AI proposals, and while I can't support the Open-Source AI Leadership Act as it's currently drafted, I think my concerns are fixable. If the chairman and sponsor of the bill are open to it, I'd welcome the opportunity to work together to fix them in the weeks ahead. While we're on this topic, Mr. Chairman, I think it's important that we name the single biggest threat to a dynamic American open-source ecosystem: regulatory uncertainty. Right now, federal AI governance is ad hoc, opaque, and blunt.
Voluntary commitments with no teeth, executive orders that can change anytime, classified benchmarks, Friday night export controls. None of that builds a durable home for American open-weight developers. What those developers need, especially the ones releasing their weights and training data openly, is stability and clarity and fairness. That's Congress's job, and we can do it now. We can write one framework that every frontier developer plays by and that every integrator, deployer, and user can plan around.
So alongside bills like the Open-Source AI Leadership Act, this committee should take up the Frontier Act, bipartisan legislation that I've written with my colleagues on this subcommittee, Representative Jay Obernolte and Erin Houchin. If our goal is strong open-source ecosystem, I can't think of a more effective bill. The Frontier Act sets one set of definitions, thresholds, and obligations for every frontier developer, no matter how they release their models. It's deliberately agnostic to open weights because it targets what a model can do, not how it's shared. It creates a narrow federal lane covering catastrophic risk transparency, independent auditing, and incident reporting while leaving states their authority to protect kids, consumers, and civil rights.
And it builds in real checks and balances. Executive branch decisions have to be grounded in technical evidence and subject to judicial review. So as this committee fills out its September calendar, I urge the chair to take up the bipartisan Frontier Act alongside the Open-Source AI Leadership Act. I think together we can create clear, effective AI safety guardrails that our constituents deserve. Thank you.
I yield back.
I thank the gentlelady. Anyone else wish to be recognized on the bill? Okay. The question now occurs on forwarding HR 10152 to the full committee.
All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed say no. The ayes have it and the bill's agreed to and forward to the full committee. All right, now we'll call up, the chair calls up H.R. 6207 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 8
H.R. 6207, a bill to prohibit purchases of certain semiconductor manufacturing equipment.
Gus Bilirakis
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be open for an amendment at any point. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? So, anyone on the Republican side? Anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? All right, let's go ahead with the amendatory process.
Are there amendments to the desk? And I do have one here. The clerk will report the amendment in the nature of a substitute, again H. 6207, the ANS.
Speaker 11
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6207 offered by Mr. Bilirakis of Florida. Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following.
Gus Bilirakis
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. This amendment is in the nature of a substitute, reflects bipartisan stakeholder agreement on H.R. 6207, the Chip Equip Act. I want to thank Representative Lofgren and Representative Obernolte for their bipartisan leadership on this particular bill. Semiconductors are critical to our national and economic security. The bipartisan Chip Equip Act takes a targeted approach to semiconductor equipment by prohibiting semiconductor projects receiving CHIPS Act funding from purchasing certain semiconductor manufacturing equipment manufactured, assembled, or refurbished by a foreign entity of concern or its subsidiaries.
Manufacturing equipment is a critical part of the supply chain, as everyone knows, and dependence on potentially adversarial sources can undermine our broader investment. This equipment, this bill strengthens the security and integrity of the U.S. semi-manufacturing conductor supply chain and ensures that our investments in domestic manufacturing advance our national security. I encourage all my members, all these members to support this amendment and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time. Is there any discussion on the amendment? No discussion on the amendment.
If there are no further discussions, the vote occurs on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
So the chair on that, I believe now we'll go ahead and any further amendments. No further amendments. The question now occurs on forwarding H.R. 6207 as amended to the full committee. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
Those opposed no. The ayes have it and the bill is agreed to and forward to the full committee. The chair calls up HR 10163 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 11
HR 10163, a bill to direct the Secretary of Commerce to promote trusted quantum supply chains in the commercial sector.
Gus Bilirakis
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? Yes, Ms. Lee, you're recognized.
Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition to speak in support of the bill.
You are recognized.
Laurel Lee
Quantum technology has the potential to revolutionize industries ranging from healthcare and communications to advanced manufacturing and national security. The United States has long been a global leader in innovation, but maintaining that leadership will require a coordinated strategy to support commercialization, strengthen supply chains, and encourage private investment. The American Quantum Competitiveness Act, led by Mr. Langworthy, takes important steps to ensure the US remains at the forefront of this critical technology. By directing the Department of Commerce to promote the manufacturing, scaling, and deployment of quantum technology, this bill helps bridge the gap between research breakthroughs and real-world applications. It also recognizes that to secure and reliable supply chain for quantum components is essential to our economic and our national security.
Importantly, the legislation brings together industry, government, and other stakeholders to identify barriers to investment, mitigate supply chain risks, and develop a national strategy for trusted quantum technologies. This forward-looking approach will help create high-skilled American jobs, strengthen domestic manufacturing, and support the next generation of technological leadership. I want to thank my friend Mr. Langworthy for his leadership on this important legislation. I look forward to supporting the bill and seeing it move forward. Thank you, I yield back.
Gus Bilirakis
I thank the gentlelady. Does anyone else seek to be recognized on the bill? Okay, seeing none, any further discussion? No. Are there any amendments to the bill?
Seeing none, the question now occurs on forwarding HR 10163 to the full committee. All those in favor say aye. Okay, all those opposed no. The ayes have it and the bill's agreed to and forward to the full committee. Okay, the chair now calls up HR 7502 and asks the clerk to report.
Again, 7502.
Speaker 8
HR 7502, a bill to prohibit a person from making a misleading recycled content claim in advertising, marketing...
Gus Bilirakis
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill would be open for amendment at any point. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? Yes? Yes, Ms. Castor, you're recognized for five minutes on the bill.
Kathy Castor
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I seek recognition to speak in opposition to HR 7502.
Kathy Castor
Thank you. Members, this bill is entitled the Recycled Materials Attribution Act. It is misleading. It is an anti-recycling, pro-plastics industry bill that will detrimentally impact the health of our neighbors back home. It will exacerbate plastic pollution.
That's very top of mind in the state of Florida, especially. They estimate that about 7,000 tons of plastic pollution enters the ocean waters, the Gulf, over time. We are just drowning in plastic. This bill does nothing to help incentivize greater recycling. It's going to be particularly costly as well.
There are a number of groups that have weighed in on this that I think you should know. The Moms Clean Air Force sent in a note, said, "If passed, this bill would deceive consumers about recycling and incentivize plastic incineration, increasing harmful air pollution and putting children's health at risk." They say that this bill allows industry to use deceptive forms of mass balance accounting. It's a bookkeeping trick that companies can claim their products contain recycled content even when there is little or no recycled material in the product. The credit can be transferred from waste plastic that was converted into toxic fuel and burned, which no one would consider recycling.
Another group, about a dozen environmental organizations, and I'll submit this for the record, also says this bill will actively undermine the goals of recycling. The list goes on and on here. The opposition has really come out in force on this one. And here's another one from NRDC and Oceana, other organizations that again call this bill misleading. So with all of this, I think this bill is not ready for prime time, Mr. Chairman.
I think we need to go back to the drawing board if we want to do some things on recycling and work together. I think we could hammer out a better compromise. I would urge a no vote on this bill.
Speaker 25
The gentlelady yields back. Any further discussion on the bill? Are there any amendments to the bill? Yes, Mr. Evans, you're recognized, Mr. Evans, for your amendment.
Gabe Evans
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk, Evans 027_xml.
The clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 24
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7502 offered by Mr. Evans of Colorado. Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following.
Gabe Evans
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment in the nature of a substitute was drafted in response to feedback from a broad range of stakeholders, and it would strengthen the Recycled Materials Attribution Act by ensuring it achieves its intended outcome of enhancing consumer protections and increasing trust in recycled content marketing claims. The ANS clarifies important definitions to ensure alignment with existing federal guidelines. Specifically, it changes the definition of post-consumer material, pre-consumer material, and recycling to position them in accordance with existing EPA definitions and guidelines. And that's because the underlying bipartisan bill takes a nuanced approach to strengthening consumer protections by establishing a nationally consistent framework for recycled content and recycled content marketing claims at a time when we're seeing a patchwork of different definitions and frameworks around the country, which causes consumer confusion and actually erects barriers to increasing recycling when there's 50 different standards or potentially 50 different standards that need to be met.
It also incentivizes innovative new technologies that can assist in reusing hard-to-recycle plastics and other materials, which helps to reduce plastic waste and lowers the content of these things in landfills. I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of this bipartisan bill alongside my friend Mr. Langworthy of New York, who I want to thank for his leadership, and so I urge my colleagues to support the AINS and the underlying bill, and yield back.
Gus Bilirakis
Gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on the amendment? Is there any further discussion? No. So let's see.
Okay, if there's no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The question now occurs on forwarding H.R. 7502 as amended to the full committee. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. No.
The ayes have it, and the bill's agreed to and forward to the full committee. Okay, we're going to go back to H.R. 6832, and the clerk will report.
Speaker 8
H.R. 6832, a bill to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to include requirements for recyclable, compostable...
Speaker 18
Without objection, the full reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. Is there any discussion on the bill? Yes, Ms. Castor, you're recognized for five minutes on the bill.
You're recognized.
Kathy Castor
Again, this will detrimentally impact the health of our neighbors back home. This is like a one-two punch. This is the second punch of a pro-plastics industry anti-recycling bill, the PACT Act. It will increase plastic pollution at a time when we are just drowning in plastics. It doesn't do anything to truly incentivize recycling.
Here's the Moms Clean Air Force on the PACT Act. They say this will make it easier for companies to use recycling symbols even when products are not actually recycled or composted at scale, increasing both consumer confusion and the risk of contamination in the municipal waste stream. This will not protect consumers from misleading recycled content or recyclability claims. Instead, they will incentivize polluting technologies. Again, the group of environmental organizations, including the National Resources Defense Council and the Moms Clean Air Force, says in opposition to the PACT Act, this will eliminate state truth-in-labeling laws.
It will preempt effective state-level recycling efforts. It will saddle states and local municipalities and thus the taxpayers with increased cost in dealing with increased volumes of un-recycled plastic waste in the recycling stream.
Surfrider Foundation also says they strongly oppose this bill, which proposes a weak voluntary federal framework lacking meaningful enforcement, revoking stronger state policies and opening the door to widespread greenwashing. The PACK Act would not only impede a traditional and established area of state regulation, but it would also saddle states and local municipalities with increased costs. That's the last thing we need at this time when everything else is so expensive. So it's bad for your health, it's bad when it comes to your pocketbook, it's going to increase plastic pollution. I say no go to the PACK Act and I urge colleagues to vote this down.
I yield back.
Speaker 18
Gentlelady yields back. Any further discussion on the bill? Seeing none, are there any amendments to the bill?
Mr. Chairman.
Yes, you're recognized, sir, for what purpose?
Russ Fulcher
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk.
Gus Bilirakis
Okay, I have an amendment, so you have an amendment, the clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 11
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6832 offered by Mr. Fulcher of Idaho, strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Proud to co-sponsor Congressman Weber's legislation, H.R. 6832, the Packaging and Claims Knowledge Act, or PACK Act. H.R. 6832 addresses a critical issue, improving the affordability of groceries and everyday consumer goods for constituents. Unfortunately, retailers, consumer packaged goods companies, and their suppliers are currently facing a patchwork of conflicting state laws related to packaging, which makes the flow of interstate commerce challenging. The bipartisan PACK Act will help in this regard.
It establishes a federal framework for recyclable, compostable, reusable claims on consumer product packaging. This amendment in the nature of a substitute is a result of thoughtful work with stakeholders from across the country to make important improvements to the PACK Act. It clarifies the role of FTC guidance, which given the actions of the previous FTC chair, serves as a necessary guardrail on federal power. It establishes minimum requirements for third-party certifications and certification bodies, ensuring that the PACK Act serves as a robust and credible framework. It ends the confusion consumers face when going to the store and seeing different and conflicting environmental claims about the goods they buy and the result in lower costs for goods and families.
I'm proud to co-sponsor this bipartisan bill along with my friend Mr. Weber of Texas, who I want to thank for his leadership on it. I encourage all my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance.
Gus Bilirakis
Gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the clerk will call the roll on the amendment. No further discussion, all those in favor shall signify by saying aye, now we're voting on the ayes on the amendment. All those in favor say aye.
Aye. All those opposed, nay.
Gus Bilirakis
Okay, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. Now we'll vote on the bill as amended. The question now occurs on forwarding H.R. 6832 as amended to the full committee. All those in favor say aye, aye. Those opposed, no.
Speaker 9
The ayes have it and the bill's agreed to and forward to the full committee.
Gus Bilirakis
Moving along here, the chair calls up HR 9385 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 11
HR 9385, a bill to protect entities integral to the national interests of the United States from foreign sustainability mandates, and for other purposes.
Gus Bilirakis
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 anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? All right. So no further discussion on the bill.
Are there any amendments to the bill? All right. Very good. Mr. Goldman, you're recognized for an amendment on the bill.
Daniel Goldman
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have an amendment on the nature of a substitute at the desk titled H9358.
Speaker 31
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9385 offered by Mr. Goldman of Texas. Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following.
Daniel Goldman
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment strengthens HR 9385, the Protect USA Act, and I want to thank Representative Fitzgerald for his leadership on this bill. American businesses shouldn't have to comply with burdensome foreign regulations that hurt our competitiveness, especially when they aren't even subject to the foreign law in the first place. The Protect USA Act protects entities important to US national interests from being forced to comply with foreign sustainability rules like the EU's Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. Here's what that looks like on the ground in my district.
A gas station owner in Fort Worth with just a handful of employees isn't multinational, isn't a multinational corporation doing business in Europe. He'll never file a compliance report in Brussels. But if he partners with a major American fuel brand that does business in Europe, his franchise contract can get rewritten to satisfy EU mandates with new questionnaires, new supplier codes, new audit requirements, all from a regulation he had no say in, passed by a government he doesn't vote for. That's a small businessman in my district spending time and money to comply with EU overreach because of who he partners with to sell gas to local families, truck drivers, and other small businesses. That's why I introduced the Stop the EU Overreach Act, directing the US Trade Representative to investigate whether these directives unfairly restrict American business and to determine how we should respond.
Together, these bills help protect American businesses from regulatory overreach abroad. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and the bill before us today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Gus Bilirakis
Gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, if there's no further discussion, all in favor shall signify by saying aye. This is on the amendment. All in favor say aye.
Aye. All those opposed, nay. Okay, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. The question now occurs on forwarding HR 9385 as amended to the full committee. All those in favor say aye.
Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it and the bill's agreed to and forward to the full committee. Okay, we're going to move now to, I believe it's 7945. Yes.
Okay, the chair calls up HR 7945 and the clerk will report.
Speaker 11
HR 7945, a bill to ban the sale of nitrous oxide consumer products and for other purposes, be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives.
Speaker 28
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 anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? You're recognized, Mr. Mullin, on the bill.
Kevin Mullin
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nitrous oxide is an addictive and dangerous substance commonly referred to as laughing gas or whippets. While there are some narrow legitimate uses in medical and industrial settings, it is otherwise a hazardous substance. There has been an alarming rise in its misuse. 14 million Americans say they have misused it, and fatalities have increased by 578% in the past decade.
Even a single use can cause debilitating effects like blood clots and neurological damage and even lead to death. Despite these risks, nitrous oxide can easily be bought in gas stations, smoke shops, and through online retailers. Not only is it easily accessible to consumers, but it is also marketed as a party drug, with names like Miami Magic or Baking Bad and Galaxy Gas, while being sold in brightly colored canisters and flavors. This is clearly targeting both kids and adults for recreational use. With such fun and carefree marketing, unsuspecting victims often have no idea that even one hit of nitrous oxide could alter their lives forever.
An individual who lost her sister to nitrous oxide addiction shared that, quote, "One of the greatest barriers we faced was my sister's belief that the product could not truly be dangerous because it was sold legally." That is why we must act. My bill, H.R. 7945, the Nitrous Oxide Safety Act, would direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission, or CPSC, to label nitrous oxide as a banned hazardous product. This straightforward approach would prohibit its sale for household and recreational use. The bill includes exemptions to ensure that legitimate uses would not be impacted, such as in dentist offices, commercial kitchens, and automotive settings.
The CPSC already has an existing regulatory framework to oversee hazardous products, meaning the agency has the experience and expertise to enact this directive once it is signed into law. Some states are working to limit access to consumer sales of nitrous oxide. For example, my home state of California is moving forward a bill that would prohibit the sale of flavored nitrous oxide or canisters larger than 8 grams. Florida also recently passed a bill prohibiting smoke shops from possessing or selling nitrous oxide. While it is encouraging to see states responding to this crisis, their acting alone is not enough.
A patchwork of state laws with various loopholes will still leave avenues for too many people to access this hazardous product. Individuals would still be able to drive across state lines or go to an online retailer to purchase it. In addition, there is no amount of nitrous oxide an individual can safely inhale without strict adherence to medical protocols. While the smallest canisters are compatible with devices to make whipped cream, their size does not make them any less dangerous for human inhalation. And there are many other ways to easily and cheaply make whipped cream at home.
Nitrous oxide is neither necessary nor appropriate for household use. My staff and I have heard from countless families who have grieved the loss of a loved one due to nitrous oxide misuse. Their stories, many of which I submitted for the record during the legislative hearing on July 22nd, are harrowing, but their commitment to honoring loved ones by advocating for change is inspiring. Too many lives have been lost. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill so we can end consumer sales of nitrous oxide and get this dangerous product off our shelves.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Gus Bilirakis
Gentleman yields back. Any further discussion? Yes, Mr. Kean, you're recognized for five minutes on the amendment.
Thomas Kean
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to see the Nitrous Oxide Safety Act included in today's markup. In my home state of New Jersey, I have heard from constituents who spoke firsthand about the dangers of a product found at gas stations and convenience stores across the country: nitrous oxide canisters, or whippets. This product contains nitrous oxide, also known as laughing gas, which can also be used as a culinary propellant for products like whipped cream. In recent years, however, there's been a sharp increase in misuse of nitrous oxide as an inhalant that gives users a high.
Its abuse can lead to heart attacks, nerve damage, muscle spasms, numbness, birth defects, paralysis, and even death. It is concerning that nitrous oxide canisters full of this dangerous and deadly substance are being sold without restriction to youth and adults who have no knowledge of the dangers associated with the substance they are inhaling. And that's why I recently sent letters to gas stations, convenience stores, and online retailers across the country who have sold nitrous oxide to unsuspecting consumers. Additionally, I introduced a bill to honor John Robert Mannarino, a constituent who passed away due to the complications from this dangerous product. Today, I'm announcing my co-sponsorship of the Nitrous Oxide Safety Act because I believe it's important to address this issue and to ensure that nitrous oxide isn't available to unsuspecting consumers.
I want to thank my colleagues for their partnership and I urge the committee to support this important legislation. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Gus Bilirakis
Gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on this particular bill? The question now occurs on forwarding HR 7945 to the full committee. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill's agreed to and forward to the full committee. Okay, moving along, the chair calls up HR 6488 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 11
HR 6488, a bill to prohibit certain platforms from allowing minors to create or maintain an account or profile.
Mr. Chairman.
Gus Bilirakis
Ms. Houchin. Ms. Houchin, yeah, you're recognized for what purpose? Okay, but let's see, if there's no further discussion, we'll move on to the amendatory process. You're recognized. Will the clerk report, please?
Speaker 11
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 6488 offered by Mrs. Houchin of Indiana. Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following. Section one, short title. This act may be cited as Governing Underserved Access and Requiring Data Consent Online.
Speaker 27
Without objection, the first... oh wait, excuse me. Without objection, the first reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the bill will be open for amendment.
We already did that. So you're recognized, Ms. Houlahan.
Erin Houchin
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for including this bill in the markup today. A lot of an immense amount of work has gone into this, and I'm certainly grateful for your consideration of the bill and for your support. Last week, Meta agreed to pay 48 states nearly 18 billion dollars and to make sweeping changes to its platforms, including night curfews, time limits, and an independent auditor. These basic steps are long overdue. And they are an admission that the industry knows that there are basic steps toward making social media safer for children.
Millions of children across the country have been harmed by the design and algorithms of these platforms. We shouldn't consider the outcome, though, of a court case as a reason to stop our work. One company acting under the pressure of litigation is not enough. A settlement binds one defendant, but it sets no standard for an industry. In fact, it actually re-emphasizes the responsibility of Congress to empower parents and to protect children online.
This committee has already shown it can do that work. Earlier this year, we passed the Kids Act package and helped shepherd it across the House floor with strong bipartisan support. I'm proud of that package and the hard work both by my colleagues on our side of the aisle and the other for the work that was done on that legislation. But my amendment today builds upon it. The result of those negotiations was a weaker COPPA 2.0.
This bill seeks to close those significant loopholes. As introduced, the RECENT Act sets a nationwide minimum age of 16 for social media. I still believe there is real validity in exploring that standard. Australia has adopted it, other countries are following, and I'm not closing the door on that today. But I do want to be practical.
I want to legislate where consensus exists. And over the past several months, I've worked with my colleagues and with stakeholders across the debate, with parents and researchers and industry, to find where we can act now to ensure parents and caregivers are not left out of the equation. I want to thank Chairman Bilirakis and Chairman Guthrie for their engagement throughout the process. This issue is personal to me. And my approach is informed by my own experience as a mother trying to keep her own children safe online.
Those conversations shaped the amendment before you today. My substitute, the Guardian Act, replaces the flat age restriction with verifiable and revocable parental consent. It puts parents in charge. No platform may process a child's personal data without a parent's consent. And parents can take that consent back at any time, as easily as they gave it, with the account closed and the data deleted.
It's the same parent empowerment principle at the heart of the Kids Act, applied to the front door of social media itself. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and the underlying bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Frank Pallone
I commend the gentlelady. Mr. Pallone, you're recognized on the bill, on the bill. I know it's on the AIMS, but I know you want to speak on the bill too, so go ahead, yes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I respect that the goal of this bill is to keep kids safe online, and I share that goal, which is why I worked across the aisle earlier this year to pass the bipartisan Kids Act. The Kids Act, which passed the House on suspension, is a comprehensive online safety package that strikes a balance between holding social media companies accountable, requiring them to turn off addictive features by default, and protecting teen autonomy and speech rights.
And the carefully negotiated protections for kids and teens data included in that package. So I can't support the amendment. But I also have strong policy concerns with the amendment. Under this amendment, teens will need parental consent to access many online platforms. And this amendment entitles parents to download all of a teen's data, including private messages.
This type of parental access to minors' data can hurt vulnerable youth or subject them to real-world harm. Not all kids are raised in supportive or even safe households. As Congress, we have a duty to keep all kids safe. Over 50% of LGBTQ+ youth face some sort of rejection at home from their parents, and more than half of closeted youth use the internet to safely connect with peers. And I worry that this bill risks both isolating teens in unsupportive households by giving their parents control over their online access and exposing teens in bad home situations to harm if their private conversations are revealed to their parents.
This amendment also threatens to lead to a widespread age verification for all online users, not just kids and teens. Current age verification technologies often use privacy-invasive methods like uploading government IDs or scanning a user's face biometrics. For all these reasons, I will be voting no both on the amendment as well as on the underlying bill. So I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 18
I thank the gentleman, yields back. Any further discussion on the amendment? Yes, Ms. Castor, you're recognized for five minutes on the amendment.
Kathy Castor
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I certainly appreciate Ms. Houchin's leadership on when it comes to social media. And really, it was thanks to both sides of the aisle on this committee we got the Kids Act over the finish line, passed the House in June. We're kind of waiting for the Senate to act, but that was kind of a very important step to update how these platforms are designed and to call out some of the very insidious addictive measures that social media companies use and then to raise the age for privacy protections. The Meta settlement last week is another call to action to make sure that whatever comes out of the Congress is the strongest possible.
There may be some things to codify that are contained in that settlement so it doesn't just apply to Meta, it applies to all platforms. But I need to have a little more clarity on what this AINS does. I understand that the RESET Act, Rep Houchin's original bill, just said, okay, age 16 and younger, that's a social media ban in the US. And that's worth debating, other countries have gone there. So that's pretty clear what that is.
This AINS, maybe counsel can give us a little clarity. How does this AINS differ from what we passed out on the Kids Act, the bipartisan package of kids online safety bills?
Speaker 33
Thank you for the question. I would point you to section 3A, prohibition. And I read A, provider of a covered platform may not process the personal data of a covered minor without obtaining the verifiable parental consent of a parent of the covered minor. Subsection B, age determination. Notwithstanding subsection A, a provider of a covered platform may process the personal data of a covered minor if, one, the provider of the covered platform processes such personal data for the sole purpose of determining the age of a user.
Paragraph two, the provider of the covered platform does not retain such personal data any longer than the period strictly necessary to determine the age of the user and deletes such personal data promptly upon determining the age of the user. Paragraph three...
Speaker 35
Can you, I wonder if counsel, if you can give it to us in plain language?
Ma'am, I believe that is a policy question.
Erin Houchin
Will the gentlelady yield? Yes, I'll yield to Rep Houchin.
So when we're crafting the the RESET Act, I don't know if you have heard the personal story, but when my daughter was 13, she got access to a social media platform. When we discovered that she had it, she wasn't allowed to, she hacked around our parental controls and she got access at at age 13. When we contacted the platform, they said she's 13, she's legally able to have it, and if she would like to delete her account, she can, but you cannot. So whether a child is 13 or 16 or 15, whatever age they are, and and I understand Mr. Pallone's concerns, but there are many parents who want to be part of those conversations and who need to be part of those conversations that may be being left out of those. What I tried to do with the Guardian Act is to set the standard at at can they contract without a for the for the use of that data without a parent's consent?
And it should be revocable. If I determine that my 16-year-old is using social media to sell drugs, then I should be able as the parent to revoke that consent and take the platform away. It's simply not enough to say they can't have a phone because we know children as young as nine are are hacking around VPNs at school and and lying about age and getting on these platforms. I'm trying to put parents in a position to have those conversations with their children and be able to protect them from these online harms and the Kids Act falls short of that, which is why I crafted Guardian.
Kathy Castor
Okay. Thank you for that explanation. So there was a lot of discussion on age verification. It's kind of a a hot topic. How does this bill, maybe for counsel first and then Rep Houchin, how does this affect age verification?
Because that's that's kind of a touchy subject out there.
Erin Houchin
I can read section 3B, age determination. Notwithstanding subsection... Maybe I'll go to Rep Houchin because we can read the bill, but I'm looking for the broader context.
So we're still working on some of the age verification issues and Rep Auchincloss and I will be dropping a bill called the Sweet 16 Act that will go in concert with with his legislation, Parents Over Platforms. We really are trying to get to a place where everyone can be comfortable that we can do age verification in a way that's good for both sides of the aisle. And so we're continuing to work through that. I think these bills work in complement with each other.
Okay. I'm out of time, but I do have questions about the preemption and knowledge standard and whether that whether they're stronger or weaker, but I'll yield back at this time and listen to the rest of the debate. Thank you.
Speaker 18
Okay. The gentlelady yields back. Yes, Mr. Goldman, you're recognized five minutes to discuss the amendment.
Erin Houchin
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time to Representative Houchin.
Thank you, Mr. Goldman. Ms. Castor, I would just say that there is language that includes a zero-knowledge proof standard, and that's one of the things that we're working on, which is basically commercially available systems that anonymize the data so it's not transferring your identity, it's just doing a plus-up or plus-down if if that anonymized data is of age or not of age. So it it adds a layer of privacy protection with that standard.
Kathy Castor
And will the gentleman yield? Sure. So that's still a little bit of a work in progress that you'd need everybody would need clarity on going forward. And then the... Wait, that is in the bill.
That is in the bill. The zero-knowledge standard is in the bill. The I understand that under the Kids Act, teens that are 13 and younger need parental consent. That was kind of an update. That was included in the COPPA 2.0 section.
So is this the taking it to 16 with the additional age verification and...?
Erin Houchin
Yes, it's taking it it's taking it to 18, or 17, I should say, because you could as I said, you could have a 16-year-old that is selling drugs on the platform.
You may not want them to have access to that platform if they're doing something that is harmful to themselves. So as a parent, you should be able to revoke that consent, and that's the idea that we're trying to... And that's the tension, I guess, between what Ranking Member Pallone was saying with vulnerable teens, that is that overbroad for certain folks. Okay, thank you. I yield back, or I yield back to you.
I yield, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 36
The gentleman yields. Thank you. All right, is there any further discussion on the amendment? Ms. Schrier, you're recognized, I'm sorry.
Kim Schrier
I just wanted to thank you, Representative Houchin, for continuing to work on protecting kids. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want you to know that you have a partner in me. I think there's so many of us who are very concerned about this and I care about parents and their involvement in their kids' lives and their right to know if kids are getting into danger. That's why I'm proud of so many parts of the KIDS Act and Sammy's Law, because that at least alerts parents if their kids are getting into danger, but still preserves kids' privacy.
I have similar concerns about age verification, but I like that you're working through this and you're getting to a place where we can protect privacy and verify age and really hold tech companies responsible. And I'm also carefully watching the ban that they're doing in Australia and other places until age 16. That was our family's policy, in fact it's still going and he's almost 18 and seems to have really no desire to be on those platforms knowing how dangerous they can be and addictive they can be. So I'm watching with interest to see what the numbers look like, but also what the outcomes are in terms of attention and focus and school and mental health and family dynamics and actual participation in sports and other activities and what they do replace that time with and how they interact with their friends and whether kids are, you know, kind of doing normal teenage activities again. And so I just want you to know that I am here to continue to partner with you on this as we get results from Australia and make sure we do the right thing for kids and families.
Also, Ms. Castor, if there was anything else you wanted to talk about, I am happy to yield the rest of my time to you. Okay, I yield back then.
Gus Bilirakis
The gentlelady yields back. Appreciate it. I commend the gentlelady for all her work. And is there any further discussion? All right, then we'll vote on the amendment if there's no further discussion.
The vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
The question now occurs on forwarding H.R. 6488 as amended to the full committee. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it and the bill's agreed to and forward to the full committee.
The chair now calls up H.R. 2713 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 8
H.R. 2713, a bill to improve online ticket sales and protect consumers and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America.
Gus Bilirakis
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be open for amendment at any point.
Anyone want to discuss the bill? Any further discussions on the bill? No? All right, so we'll get to the amendatory process. Are there any amendments?
Yes, there are. The clerk will report the amendment in the nature of a substitute, and it's H.R. 2713, the AINS. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. This amendment in the nature of a substitute, I recognize myself for the amendment. This amendment in the nature of the substitute reflects bipartisan agreement on Representative Harshbarger and Carter's Main Event Ticketing Act.
Live events, such as concerts and sports, are an important part of American culture and economy, bringing communities together and supporting artists, athletes, and venues. Americans should be able to buy tickets to their favorite show or game without competing against automated bots. Bots often purchase large quantities of tickets almost instantly, making it harder for ordinary consumers to access events at the initial price. The Main Event Ticketing Act strengthens consumer protection in the online ticket marketplace by addressing automated ticket purchasing and strengthening enforcement of existing protections. Fans should not have to rely on sophisticated software or pay inflated prices simply to attend a concert, sporting event, or other live event.
This bill improves accountability by requiring primary ticket sellers to report bot attacks, giving regulators better visibility into the scope of the problem. Building off the TICKET Act, this bill is a common-sense step toward a fairer ticketing marketplace. I encourage all my colleagues to support the amendment. We worked on this with Chair Schakowsky, you were chair at the time, I believe, and we worked on this jointly, and this adds to it, so it complements our bills. So I yield back the balance of my time, but I encourage everyone to vote on for this particular amendment.
Any further discussions on the amendment? If there are no further discussions, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. The question now occurs on forwarding H.R. 2713 as amended to the full committee. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no.
The ayes have it, and the bill's agreed to and forward to the full committee. The chair calls up H.R. 5967 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 11
H.R. 5967, a bill to direct the Federal Trade Commission, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, to convene an interagency task force for the purpose of addressing scams and for other purposes.
Gus Bilirakis
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. Does anyone seek recognition on the bill?
Okay, no discussion on the bill. So are there any amendments? Yes, okay, you are recognized to explain your amendment, but we want to have the clerk report the amendment first. Go ahead, clerk.
Speaker 24
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5967 offered by Mrs. Houchin of Indiana. Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following. Section one.
Erin Houchin
Mrs. Houchin, you're recognized to... What purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? Okay, without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in support of her amendment.
I was happy that H.R. 5967 is before us today, and I want to thank Mr. Menendez for his partnership on it. I also want to recognize my fellow Hoosier, Mr. Shreve, and the Stop Scams Caucus for keeping this issue at the forefront in the House of Representatives. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fraud used to be a nuisance crime. It isn't anymore.
Americans reported losing 15.9 billion dollars to fraud last year. That's the highest on record. It's up roughly 27 percent in a single year. The Federal Trade Commission's own estimate puts the cost of fraud in 2024 alone as high as 196 billion dollars. Clearly, this is an issue.
But the problem is not that no one is working on it. The problem is that everyone is working on it from a different angle. No single agency is able to see the whole picture. We heard that plainly at our legislative hearing in July. I asked the witnesses a simple question: what is actually stopping the federal government from sharing what it already knows?
Is it authority? Is it statute? Is it capability? The answer was simpler than that. There's a lack of ownership and coordination.
No agency has been told to own it, and no one has been tasked with the primary responsibility for it. So emerging scams discovered by one agency never reach another. Meanwhile, criminal syndicates do coordinate, and Americans get hurt. H.R. 5967, the Strategic Task Force on Scam Prevention Act, gives the work of an, gives the owner, gives ownership over the issue. It directs the FTC with the Department of Justice to convene an interagency task force for the purpose of addressing scams targeting consumers.
The task force is directed to proactively engage and consult with industry partners. These companies see things we don't. They often spot patterns long before those patterns reach a federal database. A strategy with, written without that firsthand knowledge from industry is a strategy that's written only from the outside. This bill ensures they will be part of the ongoing conversation and how we address it.
Americans are losing close to 200 billion dollars a year to criminals better coordinated than the government trying to chase them. I know we can do better, and H.R. 5967 is how we start. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and to report the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 41
I thank the gentlelady. Again, I'm sorry I have a bad cold, but anyway, I thank the gentlelady for offering the amendment. Any further discussions on the amendment? Yes, Ms. Dingell, you're recognized for five minutes on the amendment.
Debbie Dingell
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to support the gentlelady and her colleague for introducing this. Consumer protection is about trust. Families should not have to worry about their personal information being exploited or scammers waiting to steal their hard-earned savings. And today's scams have continued to evolve.
Criminals are using artificial intelligence, fake websites, spoof phone numbers, text messages, and social media to target Americans every day. In 2025, Americans reported close to 16 billion dollars in fraud losses, and we know that the true number is even higher because victims are too embarrassed to report it.
Today's scammers are evolving faster than our response. Their tactics include robocalls, text messages, and anybody been to the cryptocurrency bank machines, which are horrific. I met several people this summer who had been scammed. Artificial intelligence making scams more convincing and harder to detect. And that's why we need a coordinated national strategy and why the Strategic Task Force on Scam Prevention Act, led by Representatives Menendez and Houchin, is so important.
It will establish a task force that brings together federal agencies, law enforcement, financial institutions, and the private sector to identify the emerging threats and develop strategies to prevent scams before they happen. Because, and I unfortunately have met too many people, because once someone loses their retirement savings or life savings to a scam, recovering that money is almost impossible. Prevention has to be just as important as enforcement. And they're really getting smart. My own mother this summer, I still don't know how it happened, and thankfully somebody caught it, someone actually convinced her to put an app on her computer that they were using to take over and change the password on her financial accounts.
This is, these are, this is a smart, tough cookie, and I have more, we all have more stories than we want. Consumer protection should be a non-partisan issue. We all have a responsibility to protect the people we represent and ensure our laws keep pace with the criminals trying to exploit them. With that, I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 5967, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Gus Bilirakis
The gentlelady yields back. I thank her. Anyone else? Any further discussion on the amendment? Okay, seeing none, we're going to vote on the amendment with no further discussion.
All in favor of the amendment shall signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. The question now occurs on forwarding H.R. 5967 as amended to the full committee.
All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill's agreed to and forward to the full committee. Without objection, it looks like we're done, folks.
I appreciate y'all staying, even though they were all voice votes. I appreciate you being here and participating. So 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.