Markup of Sixteen Bills
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 sittingsBrett Guthrie
Thank you. The gentleman yields back and the Chair reminds members that pursuant to the committee rules, all members' opening statements will be made part of the record. Are there further opening statements? Seeing none on the Republican side, the gentlelady from California is recognized for three minutes for an opening statement.
Doris Matsui
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad we're moving forward today on a bipartisan set of bills from the Communications and Technology Subcommittee. These proposals take on challenges Americans deal with every single day, from scam robocalls to gaps in broadband service and cybersecurity. I want to start by talking about a problem consumers know all too well: illegal robocalls. Scammers overseas are using increasingly sophisticated technology, including AI, to steal money and personal information.
The Foreign Robocall Elimination Act would strengthen coordination among agencies and better trace where these calls come from so we can stop them before they reach consumers. Today, we will also consider the Plan for Broadband Act and the Data Bridge Act, which address another issue I've worked on for years: closing the digital divide. We can't close the digital divide if we don't know where service is missing or have a clear strategy to reach those communities. In the Sacramento region, families can live just 20 minutes from downtown and still struggle to get reliable broadband. And in the California Delta, reliable broadband is critical for farmers and rural families to thrive.
But building networks is only part of the job. A broadband connection doesn't help if a family can't afford the monthly bill, doesn't have a device, or lacks the skills to use it. So I'll keep working to make affordable, reliable broadband available to every American. I'm also glad we're moving forward on the Satellite and Telecommunications Streamlining Act. Satellite broadband can reach hard-to-serve communities and disaster-stricken areas.
This bill would create clear FCC licensing deadlines while preserving the Commission's ability to protect consumers and national security. States also retain the ability to enforce important affordability and consumer protections. Finally, the AI for Secure Networks Act examines how AI can defend our communications from cyber threats. That's important, but recent warnings from AI researchers and safety advocates make clear that we need to do more to address the risk from increasingly powerful AI systems. We can't treat safety as an afterthought.
We need real guardrails, transparency, and accountability so AI serves consumers without exposing people to scams, cyberattacks, privacy violations, or other harms. And we cannot settle for a weak, bare-minimum safeguard if that means trading away states' ability to act quickly when new AI risks emerge.
Brett Guthrie
Seeing none, before we move to the bills, I would like to do a point of personal privilege. My good friend sitting to my right here, Jess Donlon, is going to be leaving the committee. She's going to change scenery, I guess I should say that. And I will just tell you, well, I guess I'll just read what's in front of me, but I'll add to it as well. I would like to take a moment of privilege to recognize Jess.
Jess's years of dedicated public service has included several tours with the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, on our very own O&I subcommittee, the Small Business Committee, along with time as Deputy General Counsel at the Office of Management and Budget. And I'm so pleased Jess returned to the best committee in Congress last year to serve as our General Counsel. Jess has been an integral part of our team. She's been a trusted advisor and a fierce advocate for rigorous congressional oversight. She was instrumental in helping advance the Working Families Tax Cut and has been a stalwart defender of our committee's jurisdiction.
I can guarantee you that. So her dedication has made it possible for this committee to pass well over 120 bills out of the House, 35 signed into law, and we've held nearly 130 hearings and markups this Congress. Beyond her deep love and respect for this institution, Jess is an avid fan of Notre Dame sports and a world-class mom. While we will miss her deeply, we are excited for her new opportunity and wish her very well, along with her husband Steve and their three kids, Cora, Luke, and AJ. They've all become very part of the E&C family as well.
I always say that I've always enjoyed sitting here because if you do these markups, you sit a long time together and getting to know, well, I know Jess just from around the committee, but certainly sitting here throughout the days. And I can tell you what I respect about her is that she's dedicated to her faith, she's dedicated to her family, and the one thing I absolutely respect but don't agree with is her dedication to Notre Dame. So I will, but I do respect it because I think people should be passionate about the institutions who formed them. And I know your time at Notre Dame was very important to you and it taught you a lot about working your way through college. You told me some stories yesterday.
They didn't hand it to you on a silver platter, did they? They worked your way to go through the, or golden dome, I guess I should say. You worked your way through that very wonderful institution. I do have a lot of respect for the institution, just have a difference of opinion about football. So I'm really proud to have you as part of this committee.
We're going to miss you because you've been part of, as I always say, this committee is not necessarily just people working together, it's a team and it's a family, and you are very integral and we're going to miss you. So thank you for your service. And with that, we'll get, I'll call up our first. She didn't start the clock when Frank was speaking, so I said, well, good thing you're leaving because we would have to let you go. Anyways, we're going to miss you.
So the, I will call up the first bill. The chair calls up H.R. 10158 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 4
H.R. 10158, a bill to require the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study on the national and economic...
Brett Guthrie
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? The gentlelady from Tennessee.
So the gentlelady from Tennessee is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Diana Harshbarger
Sorry about that. I was chit-chatting. I'd like to speak in support of my bill HR 10158, the Automotive National and Economic Security Act of 2026, and I'd like to also thank my colleague Representative Dingell for co-leading this bipartisan legislation with me. This bill will require the Commerce Secretary to conduct a comprehensive study on the economic and national security risks to the US auto industry posed by our foreign adversaries and report the findings back to Congress. We know that China's been using unfair and underhanded tactics to corner strategic markets from critical minerals to batteries, and we're now seeing them follow the same playbook for automotive, especially as today's vehicles become increasingly connected and software-driven.
China's strategy presents both a risk to our national and economic security, and I urge all my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, and with that I yield back.
Brett Guthrie
Gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Seeing none, are there any amendments to the bill? Seeing none, the question now occurs on adopting HR 10158. A roll call has been requested and the clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mr. Latta. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Bilirakis votes aye. Mr. Hudson.
Mr. Hudson votes aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Palmer. Mr. Dunn. Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce votes aye. Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber votes aye. Mr. Allen.
Mr. Allen votes aye. Mr. Balderson. Mr. Balderson votes aye. Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Fulcher votes aye.
Mr. Pfluger. Mrs. Harshbarger. Mrs. Harshbarger votes aye. Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Mrs. Miller-Meeks votes aye.
Mr. Obernolte. Mrs. Cammack. Mr. James. Mr. Bentz. Ms. Houchin.
Mr. Fry. Ms. Lee. Ms. Lee votes aye. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Kaine.
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Rouzer votes aye. Mr. Evans. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
Mrs. Foushee. Mr. Pallone. Mr. Pallone votes aye. Ms. DeGette. Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky votes aye. Ms. Matsui. Ms. Matsui votes aye. Ms. Castor. Ms. Castor votes aye.
Mr. Tonko. Mr. Tonko votes aye. Ms. Clarke. Mr. Ruiz. Mr. Peters.
Mrs. Dingell. Mrs. Dingell votes aye. Mr. Peters votes aye. Mr. Veasey. Ms. Kelly.
Ms. Barragán. Mr. Soto. Mr. Soto votes aye. Ms. Schrier. Ms. Schrier votes aye.
Ms. Trahan. Ms. Trahan votes aye. Ms. Fletcher. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. Auchincloss.
Mr. Auchincloss votes aye. Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Menendez. Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mr. Mullin.
Mr. Mullin votes aye. Mr. Landsman. Mr. Landsman votes aye. Ms. McClellan. Ms. McClellan votes aye.
Chairman Guthrie. Chairman Guthrie. Chairman Guthrie votes aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Chairman Guthrie votes aye.
Mr. Griffith votes aye.
Aye.
Mr. Latta votes aye.
Aye.
Mr. Kaine votes aye.
Brett Guthrie
Anyone on your side, other side? Seeing none, the clerk will report. Mr. Bentz, before you report, Mr. Bentz, how are you recorded?
Yes.
Aye.
Speaker 14
Mrs. Cammack votes aye. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there are 33 ayes and zero noes.
Brett Guthrie
The ayes have it and the bill is adopted. The chair calls up H.R. 6832 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 4
Committee print of H.R. 6832, a bill to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act.
Brett Guthrie
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill be open for amendment at any point, so ordered. Does anybody seek to be recognized on the bill? Mr. Weber, you're recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Randy Weber
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What this bill does, the PACK Act, creates a nationally consistent framework for voluntary recyclable, compostable, and reusable claims on consumer product packaging. It gives consumers clearer, more trustworthy information while replacing differing state requirements with one federal framework for covered claims. What the bill does, it covers three packaging claims: recyclable, compostable, and reusable. The bill does not, let me repeat, regulate every environmental marketing claim.
What the bill does, it does establish a national framework. The FTC would administer the requirements governing when these claims may be made on consumer product packaging. It will consider input from the EPA and as well as a newly established advisory council. The bill requires independent certification. Covered claims must be certified by an accredited third-party certification body qualified to determine whether the packaging claims comply with the law.
What the bill does, it creates national consistency. That's something we need across the nation. States and localities may not establish or enforce legal requirements for covered claims that are not absolutely identical to federal requirements. This bill does not mandate environmental claims. The FTC may not require a company to label packaging recyclable, compostable, or reusable.
The requirements apply when a company chooses to make a covered claim. This bill allows standards to evolve. The bill does not lock specific recycling access or recovery rate thresholds into statute. It doesn't do that. The FTC is directed to issue implementing guidance allowing the framework to account for changing recycling, composting, and reuse systems.
Why does this matter? Glad y'all asked. Consumer clarity. It provides more consistent and credible information about recyclable, compostable, as well as reuse packing claims.
It's about affordability. A national framework can actually reduce unnecessary costs from differing states' labeling, packaging, inventory, as well as compliance requirements, costs that can move through the supply chains to consumers. Why it matters: manufacturing certainty. Consistent rules provide greater predictability for companies making and selling products nationwide. Recycling and innovation matters.
Clearer rules, clearer rules can support better recovery outcomes and allow manufacturers to focus investment on packaging improvements, recycling technologies, as well as innovation. Mr. Chairman, that's kind of the bill in a nutshell, and I yield back.
Brett Guthrie
Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Frank Pallone
Mr. Chairman, I want to express my opposition again to the PAC Act. We can all agree that addressing consumer confusion and trust in our nation's recycling system is critical. Most Americans want to recycle. However, it can be difficult for consumers to understand what, how, and where certain materials can be recycled. Unfortunately, the PAC Act completely misses the mark, in my opinion.
By allowing manufacturers to effectively self-regulate and establishing weak federal standards for recyclable, compostable, and reusable claims for consumer product packaging, the PAC Act protects plastic producers' ability to greenwash their products as opposed to actually providing consumers clarity and protecting them from misleading claims. The bill also preempts stronger state laws that aim to protect both consumers and recyclers. Simply put, the PAC Act will allow manufacturers to label their products as recyclable without considering if the infrastructure and market exist to actually recycle the material. And this bill will increase contamination in our recycling systems and increase recycling costs, shifting the burden to recycling facilities, local governments, and communities to bear the brunt of the cost of contamination. Now, municipal solid waste recycling systems are already severely underfunded, and local governments face tight budgets, so we should be putting forth proposals that help strengthen our recycling systems, not undermine them.
Ultimately, the PAC Act is not rooted in the reality of our nation's recycling systems and capabilities and would, I think, exacerbate the current plastic pollution crisis. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and I yield back.
Will the gentleman yield?
Sure.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleague across the aisle there, if you read the bill, it's actually, this bill is administered by the Federal Trade Commission, not the EPA, but it's going to use that relationship to make sure that a lot of the good things we would consider about packaging and about the environment are actually taken into consideration. It does not necessarily make for undue influences on the business. We're not trying to get past this, if I can say this frank, I appreciate that. They're not trying to get, you know, some kind of a break so that they can pull the wool over the consumers' eyes.
It's not about that. It's about affordability, it's about reliability, it's about working across the entire country so that all the states have the same guideline so that they can actually label their products and make it better for consumers, easier for consumers. And don't forget, FTC will be handling this with help from the EPA. I just want to make that clear, and I yield back.
Frank Pallone
And I, and I want the gentleman from Texas to understand, I understand your good intentions.
Look, I hope you're right. But the bottom line is I am just very concerned. I'm not saying I'm an expert on recycling, but I've spent a lot of time with it over the years. And right now, when I look at the towns I represent and the problems that they're having with recycling and the public's, you know, concern that is the stuff really being recycled, am I wasting my time, you know, trying to go through this effort? I just think the bill misses the mark in that respect.
And that's why I'm saying what I say. I think that the effort has to be made to really look at the realities of what's happening on the ground with a lot of these towns, their budgets, and the public's expectations. And I just don't think this is going to do it. But again, I don't want to criticize you because I know your well-intentioned. So with that...
Will the gentleman yield back?
Of course.
Speaker 8
Well, I want to say that if you read through this bill, which I've done of course obviously, it is that the FTC along with EPA and along with a lot of the states and agencies absolutely have everything in mind that you just mentioned. And so really has the consumer's best interest at its heart. And I think having a, for lack of a better term, at least nationwide, a universal, again, this is not mandatory. Companies can do this and it lays out the programs and the guidelines as to how this can be done and actually help our consumers. I'm not sure which towns you talked about in New Jersey, but Texas is a big state.
Frank Pallone
Well, I mean, taking back my time, you know, I spent last week, it's a different issue, at a recycling center in Congressman Norcross's district in the southern part of the state. And again, this is not the issue at hand, but there's just so many problems that we face with recycling now. And I think that we need to, we need to really dig down on this and this is not the way to do it. But in any case, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Brett Guthrie
The gentleman yields back and I'll remind my friend from Texas, I know you did it friendly so I didn't interrupt, but don't refer to members by their first name. You probably didn't even realize you did it, but you said Frank.
Speaker 19
All right. So any further speak on the, Mr. Carter from Georgia, you're recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Earl Carter
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Thank you. I rise in support of the PAC Act because families deserve packaging labels they can trust. When a family purchases a product labeled recyclable, compostable, or reusable, they deserve to know that those words mean something.
Business making, businesses making those claims should be able to back them up. The PAC Act establishes consistent national standards for these packaging claims and requires independent certification. It also requires companies to explain limitations when recycling or composting options are not widely available. That matters because a label is only useful if it helps consumers understand what they can actually do with the packaging in their hands. For manufacturers, a consistent national framework provides greater certainty when designing packaging and selling products across state lines.
For consumers, it provides clearer information to guide everyday decisions. Representing coastal Georgia, I care deeply about protecting our waterways and supporting the businesses and workers who produce and recycle the materials we use. We should encourage responsible packaging choices and make sure companies compete on claims that they can substantiate.
As this legislation moves forward, implementation should remain practical for businesses of all sizes while maintaining meaningful protections against misleading claims. I thank Representative Weber for his leadership and I urge my colleagues to support the PACT Act and I yield back.
Gentleman is recognized to speak on the bill.
Paul Tonko
Thank you. Our nation's recycling system obviously faces a wide range of challenges, including high contamination rates and confusion about what materials can be recycled. There are glaring needs for better data, accessibility, labeling, and education to ensure that people feel confident that they are using the blue bin correctly and that their efforts will result in real recycling, meaning products actually ending up in responsible end markets. And while I have some sympathies for the concerns that a patchwork of conflicting labeling standards could emerge across the country, unfortunately, the PACT Act falls short as a solution. Accurate on-package label claims are crucial to improving our nation's recycling system.
However, the recyclability claims in the bill fail to recognize the real-world operating conditions of our nation's 9,000 local recycling programs. Recyclability claims in the PACT Act remain untethered from ensuring these products are actually accepted, sorted, processed, and sold to responsible end markets to be transformed into new products. I worry that by preempting stronger state policy, the PACT Act will leave behind a weak, voluntary federal framework that would not help raise the current status quo. Strong recyclability labeling standards also help incentivize and promote the design of products for recyclability, which is a common-sense innovation worth encouraging. With a national recycling and composting rate of just 32%, we have a lot of room for improvement.
And unfortunately, the PACT Act will not move the needle, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. With that, I thank you and yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 23
Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Gentleman from Idaho is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word.
Russ Fulcher
Gentleman is recognized to speak on the bill.
Chobani, the yogurt company in my home state of Idaho, brought the PACT Act to my office's attention. Understandably, they are concerned about the growing number of patchwork state labeling laws pertaining to recyclable, compostable, and reusable claims on consumer packaging. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chobani would have to come up with different recycling labels for Idaho, another for California, another for Washington, and well, you kind of get the picture. That's an environmental mandate with questionable benefits but a significant manufacturing burden on the company and an added cost to be passed on to the consumer.
The PACT Act is a straightforward solution that directs the FTC to establish a federal framework governing recyclable, compostable, and reusable claims on consumer packaging. As a former state senator, I am sensitive to the state preemption, but the preemption provision is limited to labeling laws and preserves states' ability to implement other environmental policies such as extended producer responsibility programs, recycling and recycling infrastructure improvements, and so on. I encourage my colleagues to support this, and it is both environmental and business-friendly, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Kathy Castor
Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Gentlelady from Florida is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Colleagues, I strongly oppose this pro-polluter, anti-recycling bill. We already know that based on recent research that microplastics are entering our bodies, may be cancer-causing. It is going to simply keep America awash in plastics that is detrimental to our health. We need to do everything we can to control the plastics waste stream in America.
It is also going to prove very costly to local communities that already are operating recycling initiatives. Don't just take it from me. 58 organizations wrote to the committee, including the League of Conservation Voters, the National Resources Defense Council, Moms Clean Air Force, Earthjustice. Here's what they say.
They say they urge us to oppose these two misleading bills, including this one, the PACT Act. These bills are framed as consumer right-to-know laws, but by allowing the plastics industry to promote false claims about both recycled content of products and the recyclability of plastic packaging, they would actually boost the industry's ability to deceive consumers and embolden their efforts to inundate consumers with plastic. The deluge of plastics threatens public health and the environment. Among the wide-reaching implications, evidence continues to grow that virtually all of us have microplastics in our bodies. They continue, the PACT Act would eliminate state truth-in-labeling laws.
They say the breadth of the preemption in the PACT Act would also threaten states' ability to regulate PFAS or other toxic chemicals added to packaging as it relates to determining their status as recyclable, reusable, and compostable. In place of these carefully crafted state policies, the PACT Act proposes a vague framework which fails to consider states' individual recycling capabilities, jeopardizing the work states are already doing to ensure recycling claims are clear and accurate based on local conditions and to help reduce toxicity of certain packaging. The PACT Act also prohibits the FTC from developing any binding regulations that would allow the agencies to build on an effective national program. The PACT Act would also increase recycling costs for communities nationwide. When packaging contains inaccurate recycling claims, the result is a recycling stream contaminated with unwanted, unrecyclable materials, which states and local municipalities must manage at the expense of taxpayers.
And they weren't alone. The Surfrider Foundation, that I listen to and we should all listen to, I have an ocean-facing district in the Gulf of Mexico, we're awash in plastic pollution. We have to do more to control the pollution. It's very expensive to do so, and why would you wipe away what local communities are able to do? The Surfrider Foundation says, along with over 1,800 signatories, they oppose the industry-backed bills that would roll back important advancements made in tackling plastic pollution.
In particular, Surfrider strongly opposes the PACT Act, which proposes a weak, voluntary federal framework lacking meaningful enforcement, revoking stronger state policies and opening the door to widespread greenwashing. The PACT Act would not only impede a traditional and established area of state regulation, but it would also saddle states and local municipalities, and thus taxpayers, with increased costs of dealing with increased volumes of unrecyclable plastic waste in the recycling stream. For all of these reasons, colleagues, there's no reason to promote a pro-pollution, anti-public health, costly initiative. This is a gift to polluters that is unnecessary and unwanted at this time. And I thank you and I yield back.
Brett Guthrie
Gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Gentleman from Ohio is, I see there on our side, and gentleman from Ohio is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Greg Landsman
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The PACT Act would only work if the FTC works. And this is my challenge to my colleague.
I truly understand why we want to establish a national framework here, and there is value in having clear and consistent standards across the country as it relates to these recyclable materials. Here's the issue: given the Supreme Court's gutting of the FTC this past June, I have concerns about the agency being in a position to do this in a non-partisan way. The FTC was designed to be an independent, bipartisan agency focused on protecting American consumers. The challenge is that President Trump removed the commission's two Democratic members, and today an agency designed to have five commissioners is operating with just two Republican commissioners, which raises real concerns for me and I suspect many of my colleagues about the independence of the agency, especially when partnership is particularly problematic on the environmental issue this bill addresses. Consumers and businesses need to know that standards will be implemented consistently, transparently, and without political interference.
I think we need to address these concerns before moving forward. With that, I yield back.
Brett Guthrie
Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Seeing none, are there any amendments to the bill? Seeing none, there's no further discussion. The question now occurs on adopting H.R. 6832.
A roll call has been requested and the clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mr. Latta. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Bilirakis votes aye. Mr. Hudson.
Mr. Hudson votes aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Palmer. Mr. Palmer votes aye. Mr. Dunn.
Mr. Crenshaw. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce votes aye. Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber votes aye.
Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen votes aye. Mr. Balderson. Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Pfluger.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Mrs. Harshbarger votes aye. Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Mrs. Miller-Meeks votes aye. Mrs. Cammack.
Mrs. Cammack votes aye. Mr. Obernolte. Mr. James. Mr. Bence. Mr. Bence votes aye.
Mrs. Houchin. Mr. Fry. Mr. Fry votes aye. Ms. Lee. Ms. Lee votes aye.
Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy votes aye. Mr. Kane. Mr. Kane votes aye. Mr. Rouzer.
Mr. Rouzer votes aye. Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans votes aye. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Mrs. Fedorchak votes aye. Mr. Pallone. Mr. Pallone votes no. Ms. DeGette.
Ms. Schakowsky. Ms. Matsui. Ms. Matsui votes no. Ms. Castor. Ms. Castor votes no.
Mr. Tonko. Mr. Tonko votes no.
Speaker 4
Ms. Clarke? No. Ms. Clarke votes no. Mr. Ruiz? Mr. Peters?
Mr. Peters votes no. Mrs. Dingell? Mrs. Dingell votes no. Mr. Veasey? Ms. Kelly?
Ms. Barragán? Mr. Soto? No. Mr. Soto votes no. Ms. Schrier?
No. Ms. Schrier votes no. Ms. Trahan? No. Ms. Trahan votes no.
Ms. Fletcher? Ms. Ocasio-Cortez? Mr. Auchincloss? No. Mr. Auchincloss votes no.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana? Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez votes no. Mr. Mullin? Mr. Mullin votes no.
Mr. Landsman? Mr. Landsman votes no. Ms. McClellan? No. Ms. McClellan votes no.
Chairman Guthrie? Chairman Guthrie votes aye.
Are there any... Mr. Latta?
Carter of Georgia?
Griffith?
Aye. Mr. Griffith votes aye.
Balderson?
Obernolte?
Fulcher?
Barragán?
Mr. Schakowsky is not recorded.
Okay. Mr. Schakowsky?
Mr. Schakowsky is not recorded. No. Mr. Schakowsky votes no.
Ms. DeGette?
Speaker 37
Anyone else? Who are you pointing to? Anyone that's not been recorded... anyone who wants to present? Seeing none, the clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there were 25 ayes and 18 nos.
The ayes have it and the bill is adopted. The chair calls up H.R. 7502 and asks the clerk to report.
Committee print of H.R. 7502.
Nicholas Langworthy
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? Mr. Langworthy is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for including my bill, H.R. 7502, the Recycled Materials Attribution Act, on today's full markup agenda. My bipartisan legislation establishes a clear nationwide standard for recycled content claims, giving American manufacturers the certainty that they need to invest in innovative recycling technologies while ensuring that consumers can trust the claims that they see on products. American manufacturers are constantly finding new ways to make better use of the materials already in our economy, strengthening domestic supply chains and turning materials that would otherwise go to waste into valuable inputs for new products. But our laws and our regulations need to keep pace with that innovation. And today, manufacturers increasingly use what is known as mass balance accounting to track recycled materials through complex manufacturing processes.
Put simply, when recycled and traditional materials are combined during production, mass balance accounting allows manufacturers to reliably track how much recycled material enters a supply chain and appropriately attribute that amount to the products that come out. This approach is particularly important for advanced recycling technologies and manufacturing processes where recycled and conventional feedstocks cannot always be physically separated through every stage of production. The Recycled Materials Attribution Act establishes a federal framework recognizing mass balance accounting as an acceptable way to substantiate recycled content claims, provided those claims are backed by independent third-party certification systems. At the same time, this bill makes clear that consumers deserve accurate information. It prohibits companies from making misleading recycled claims and requires those claims to be supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence.
It also directs the Federal Trade Commission to update its Green Guide to reflect these standards and give the FTC the authority to enforce the law against deceptive claims. That balance is important. We should encourage American companies to invest in new recycling technologies and manufacturing processes without creating a system where anybody can simply slap a recycled label on a product without being able to back it up with fact. And manufacturers operating across state lines should not have to navigate through a growing patchwork of conflicting state standards on how these claims are made. This legislation establishes one consistent national standard so that businesses know the rules of the road and consumers know they can trust the claims that they actually see.
Ultimately, this is about giving American manufacturers certainty, encouraging investment in innovation here at home, and recognizing technologies that can help put more recycled material back into productive use. I'm very proud to lead this bipartisan legislation and I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have joined me in this effort. And I urge my colleagues to support the Recycled Materials Attribution Act. And before I yield back, I'd like to enter into the record the Progressive Policy Institute's report entitled "The Waste Diversion Benefits of Expanding Advanced Recycling".
Perfect. Without objection.
H. Griffith
So ordered. And now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, ranking member of the committee, Mr. Pallone, for his time.
Frank Pallone
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I move to, well, I'm going to speak in opposition to the bill. And that's because improving recycled content labels is critical to providing transparency and clarity to consumers, but unfortunately, I don't believe that this bill does that. I think it does the opposite. Under the guise of preventing misleading claims, the bill opens the door for the use of a misleading accounting method that would allow producers to cook the books and claim fictionally high recycled content claims in products that may actually contain little to zero recycled content.
And as a result, under this bill, a plastic soda bottle, for example, could include a 100% recycled content claim on the label, yet actually contain just about 10% recycled plastic. And this accounting process does not verify the actual recycled content in a particular product and is inherently misleading, I think. The EPA even cited concerns with this method in comments to the Federal Trade Commission on the proposed revised Green Guides, calling the practice deceptive. And while I appreciate the desire to eliminate misleading claims and provide consumers with more clarity, I know the sponsors on both sides are trying to do that. But I do not, I don't think that allowing manufacturers to claim a product contains 100% recycled content when it really contains a much lower percentage is dispelling consumer confusion.
I think it creates more confusion. And this bill could also have cascading consequences for our nation's recycling system by hurting demand for truly recycled materials. The bill also takes the very worrisome step of opening up recycling to fuel generation. And I have to be clear, turning plastic into fuel is not recycling. And finally, this bill also preempts state laws, the right of states who are taking the lead on recycling efforts nationwide.
States are our testing ground, and we can and we should learn from their efforts, not undermine them with a weak federal standard. So, you know, I also should mention, you know, I represent the Jersey Shore, a lot of concern about, about plastics and, and plastic pollution. I want to work together to tackle the plastic crisis in a meaningful way, but I don't believe that's what this bill accomplishes. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
H. Griffith
Gentleman yields back. Do we have other speakers? Do we have any other speakers? Recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor.
Kathy Castor
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I seek to speak in opposition to the bill. Thank you very much. Members, again, this is a, another pro-plastics pollution bill. If you like plastic pollution, you're going to love this bill.
What it does, it legitimizes a deceptive accounting and marketing practice for plastic recycled content. It allows the industry to claim that virgin plastic is actually recycled, and it will play on the desires of American consumers who want to do the right thing. My, my colleague, Mr. Soto, from up the road in Florida, represents the Disney area. And this is, to put it in that kind of context, this is a fast pass for polluters, for plastic pollution, kind of creating a fantasy land, something that the plastic industry really desires. It's sneaky.
It's going to be bad for our health, it's going to be bad for our pocketbooks, and it is going to increase plastic pollution. The, a number of environmental organizations wrote to the committee, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Moms Clean Air Force, Earthjustice, among many others. And this is what they write about this Recycled Materials Attribution Act. The bill, the bill sanctions the industry's use of highly deceptive accounting practices, which allow virgin plastic to be sold as recycled via the transfer of credits generated from fuel production and use. As a result, a plastic bottle could be sold as containing 100% recycled plastic when, in fact, it may not contain any recycled plastic at all.
Converting plastic waste into fuel should never amount to a credit or claim for recycling. Turning waste into toxic fuel is not recycling. And then they go on. By allowing practices that result in false and misleading claims about the amount of recycled material in a product, the bill would promote the most highly polluting forms of plastic waste disposal and provide them with a market advantage over mechanical recycling. These deceptive claims also prey on consumers' willingness to pay a premium for products that they've been led to believe contain recycled content, juicing industry profits and effectively subsidizing incineration over traditional mechanical recycling.
Members, if, I think we're living in a fantasy land if you, if you think these bills are good for consumers, if you think they're good for our pocketbooks, good for our health, in a country that's awash in plastic pollution. We can do so much better, and our neighbors back home deserve a whole lot better too. I yield back my time.
H. Griffith
Gentlelady yields back. Any further speakers? Looking on the right side of the dais. Seeing none, I recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Landsman. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Speaker 4
Amendment to H.R. 7502 offered by Mr. Landsman of Ohio, page 7, line 17.
Speaker 27
We can suspend with the reading of the amendment and Mr. Landsman is now recognized to present and argue in favor of his amendment.
Greg Landsman
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that advanced recycling can play a really important role in improving the way we recycle in the United States, but as we expand these technologies, we need to make sure that we're protecting consumers and addressing the potential hazardous air pollutants. The bill that we're discussing directs the FTC to update the green guides for environmental marketing claims to recognize mass balance accounting. This is the obvious sticking point with the bill. The FTC is also required to issue guidance that permits mass balance accounting for substantiated recycled content claims when certain requirements are met, including compliance with a third-party certification system.
My amendment strengthens that requirement and ensures that a third-party certification system independently verifies two things. Number one, the free allocation mass balance accounting is not being used and that, two, the recycling process does not generate hazardous air pollutants. This is, of course, about transparency and accountability. Consumers need to be able to trust that when a product is marketed as containing recycled materials, that claim actually means something. We should not create a system where products can be marketed as containing recycled content even if they contain little to no recycled plastic.
I believe we should continue supporting innovation in recycling and I think we can do that while protecting public health and also strengthening domestic recycling markets, supporting manufacturing competitiveness and keeping jobs and investments here at home. My hope is that we continue to work together as a committee and find a bipartisan path forward on this and other bills. And with that, I withdraw my amendment. And I yield back.
H. Griffith
Gentleman has withdrawn his amendment and yielded back. Any further speakers on this bill? Recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for five minutes to speak to the bill.
Paul Tonko
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word. I start by stating that I'm not inherently opposed to mass balance accounting systems. I do think when done correctly, it can be a legitimate way to deal with the realities of a large and complex recycling system. But an accounting system needs to be based on sound rules that reinforce high recycling standards.
And unfortunately, this bill would completely undermine what it means to recycle. We have a well-established waste management hierarchy. Every kid learns the three Rs: reduce, reuse, and recycle. And the intention is to give preference in that order. Reduction first, then reuse, and then recycling to stop so much waste from ending up in our landfills.
But most kids don't learn the fourth option in the hierarchy. That's energy recovery, which is separate, distinct, and less preferable than recycling. Concerningly, this bill opens up the definition of recycling to technologies where the main output is used to make fuel. This is not recycling, that is energy recovery. And under the accounting system proposed by this bill, companies would get credit for turning plastic into fuel and then would be able to sell those credits to virgin plastic producers who could market their products as containing recycled content.
Under this example, no virgin plastic production will be displaced by actual recycling.
I want to support technology innovation in recycling. And I understand we have hard-to-recycle materials that may require new strategies, ranging from source reduction to new recycling technologies. But these new technologies need to work. And that means they are environmentally sound, economically competitive, and actually result in displacing virgin material production. At the moment, I don't think this has been the case, which is why we are seeing proposals such as this one to enable energy recovery to be counted as recycling, upending the waste management hierarchy that has been settled upon for decades.
Finally, numerous states are forging ahead with extended producer responsibility laws, or EPR, for consumer product packaging, which require producers to take responsibility for the end-of-life management of their products. EPR not only helps improve recycling services and infrastructure, but also encourages strong demand for recycled materials, which indeed is crucial. Unfortunately, this bill would distort this important principle by allowing recycled content claims to be met through weak accounting mechanisms as opposed to utilizing actual recycled content material. Ultimately, this bill would allow manufacturers to artificially inflate the recycled content claims in their products, which would reduce transparency and undermine recycled content labeling claims, while failing to actually strengthen our recycling system. So with all that said, I urge members to oppose this bill.
And I thank you, Mr. Chair, and yield back.
Speaker 48
Gentleman yields back. Any further folks looking for an opportunity to speak on this bill? All right, seeing no further discussion. Hang on, got to find the part in the script. Getting ready to call for the vote, so anybody that's out there in the hallway, head on in here.
How are we doing? Okay. All right, the question now occurs on adopting H.R. 7502. A roll call has been requested. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Latta.
Speaker 7
Mr. Griffith votes aye. Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Hudson. Mr. Carter of Georgia.
Mr. Allen votes aye. Mr. Balderson.
Mr. Balderson votes aye. Mr. Fulcher.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Mrs. Cammack. Mrs. Harshbarger votes aye.
Mr. Bence votes aye. Mrs. Houchin.
Ms. Lee votes aye. Mr. Langworthy.
Speaker 4
Ms. Lee votes aye. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy votes aye. Mr. Kane. Mr. Rouzer.
Mr. Rouzer votes aye. Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans votes aye. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
Mr. Evans votes aye. Mr. Goldman.
Speaker 4
Mrs. Foushee. Mrs. Foushee votes aye. Mr. Pallone. Mr. Pallone votes no. Ms. DeGette.
Ms. DeGette votes no. Ms. Schakowsky. Ms. Schakowsky votes no. Ms. Matsui. Ms. Matsui votes no.
Ms. Castor. Ms. Castor votes no. Mr. Tonko. Mr. Tonko votes no. Ms. Clarke.
Ms. Clarke votes no. Mr. Ruiz. Mr. Ruiz votes no. Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters votes no.
Mrs. Dingell. Mrs. Dingell votes no. Mr. Veasey. Mr. Veasey votes aye. Ms. Kelly.
Ms. Barragán. Ms. Barragán votes no. Mr. Soto. Mr. Soto votes no. Ms. Schrier.
Ms. Schrier votes no. Ms. Trahan. Ms. Trahan votes no. Ms. Fletcher. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.
Mr. Auchincloss. Mr. Auchincloss votes no. Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Menendez. Mr. Menendez votes no.
Mr. Mullin. Mr. Mullin votes no. Mr. Landsman. Mr. Landsman votes no. Ms. McClellan.
Ms. McClellan votes no. Chairman Guthrie. Chairman Guthrie votes aye. Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Bilirakis is not recorded.
Mr. Weber. Mr. Bilirakis votes aye. Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber is not recorded. Mr. Weber votes aye.
Mr. Crenshaw. Mr. Crenshaw votes aye. Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Mrs. Miller-Meeks votes aye. Mr. Kiley.
Mr. Kiley votes aye. Mr. Fry is not recorded. Mr. Fry votes aye.
Speaker 48
Do I have anybody that's unrecorded on this side? Anybody else on this side? I don't see any. All right. All right, let's go over here.
If somebody walks in, let me know. Ah, Mr. Hudson. How is Mr. Hudson recorded? Mr. Hudson is not recorded.
Mr. Hudson votes aye.
Speaker 38
Seeing no others, when the clerk is prepared, they can report. All right.
Speaker 45
19 nos, the bill is reported and it is adopted as well. Send that bad boy to the floor. All right, and now I will turn it back over. I'll call for the next bill. All right, we're now looking for, if the clerk could report H.R. 9385.
Speaker 4
Committee print of H.R. 9385, a bill to prohibit entities integral to the national interest of the United States from participating in any foreign sustainability due diligence regulation, including the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive of the European Union, and for other purposes.
Speaker 48
And without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be open for amendment at any time, so ordered. Is there anyone wishing to... Oh. Okay. I will yield the chair.
Speaker 39
And without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be open for amendment at any time, so ordered.
Brett Guthrie
Chair will recognize himself to speak on the bill. This legislation is vital because American businesses shouldn't have to comply with burdensome foreign regulations that hurt our competitiveness, especially when they aren't even subject to that foreign law in the first place. The Protect USA Act protects entities important to U.S. national interest 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 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 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 EU Overreach Act, directing the U.S. Trade Representative to investigate whether these directives unfairly restrict American businesses 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. I yield back. Chair recognizes Mr. Pallone.
Frank Pallone
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be speaking in opposition to the bill. This legislation puts American companies in an impossible bind: either comply with this law or face penalties in the European Union. The Protect USA Act forbids American companies from complying with foreign sustainability due diligence regulations like those in the European Union. Companies will face a one million dollar fine or have to pull out of one of our largest export markets.
The only certainty this bill provides is more legal exposure and higher costs. This extraordinary ban will impede rather than encourage U.S. competitiveness at a time when small businesses and the consumers they serve are bearing the brunt of tariffs and the Trump administration's reckless war of choice in Iran. My colleagues across the aisle say this bill protects small businesses, but I don't think it does. All businesses thrive on certainty, and this bill provides no certainty. That burden will fall hardest on small businesses without lobbyists or retainers.
We should be strengthening American competitiveness, not handing businesses a legal minefield. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the bill for this reason, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Brett Guthrie
If not, the question now occurs on adopting H.R. 9385. A roll call has been requested. The clerk will call the roll.
Is there any other member who seeks recognition on the bill?
Speaker 7
Mr. Latta. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Hudson. Mr. Hudson votes aye.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes aye. Mr. Palmer. Mr. Palmer votes aye. Mr. Dunn.
Mr. Crenshaw. Mr. Crenshaw votes aye. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce votes aye. Mr. Weber.
Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen votes aye. Mr. Balderson. Mr. Balderson votes aye. Mr. Fulcher.
Mr. Fulcher votes aye. Mr. Pfluger. Mrs. Harshbarger. Mrs. Harshbarger votes aye. Mrs. Miller-Meeks.
Mrs. Cammack. Mrs. Cammack votes aye. Mr. Obernolte. Mr. Obernolte votes aye. Mr. James.
Mr. Pence. Mrs. Houchin. Mrs. Houchin votes aye. Mr. Fry. Ms. Lee.
Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Kane. Mr. Kane votes aye. Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Rouzer votes aye.
Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans votes aye. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes aye. Mrs. Fletcher.
Mr. Pallone. Mr. Pallone votes no. Ms. DeGette. Ms. DeGette votes no. Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky votes no. Ms. Matsui. Ms. Matsui votes no. Ms. Castor. Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Tonko votes no. Ms. Clarke. Ms. Clarke votes no. Mr. Ruiz. Mr. Ruiz votes no.
Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters votes no. Mrs. Dingell. Mrs. Dingell votes no. Mr. Veasey.
Mr. Veasey votes no. Ms. Kelly. Ms. Barragán. Ms. Barragán votes no. Mr. Soto.
Mr. Soto votes no. Ms. Schrier. Ms. Schrier votes no. Mrs. Trahan. Mrs. Trahan votes no.
Ms. Fletcher. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. Auchincloss. Mr. Auchincloss votes no. Mr. Carter of Louisiana.
Mr. Menendez. Mr. Menendez votes no. Mr. Mullin. Mr. Mullin votes no. Mr. Landsman.
Mr. Landsman votes no. Ms. McClellan. Ms. McClellan votes no. Chairman Guthrie. Chairman Guthrie votes aye.
Speaker 54
All right, let's start. I'm just going to call you by last name. Griffith.
Mr. Griffith votes aye.
Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis votes aye.
Fedorchak.
Mrs. Fedorchak votes aye.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks votes aye. Latta?
Mr. Latta votes aye. Bence?
Brett Guthrie
Mr. Bence votes aye. I'm going slow to make sure I get everybody on this side. Seeing no one else, Mr. Weber, I thought you had already voted. I'm sorry. I didn't see your hand.
Ms. Castor votes no. Mr. Weber?
Speaker 56
Mr. Weber votes aye. Anyone else? I want to give everybody the chance to vote. Seeing none, the clerk will report.
Brett Guthrie
The ayes have it and the bill is adopted. The chair calls up H.R. 10170 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 4
H.R. 10170, a bill to require the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study on the marketplace for advanced...
Brett Guthrie
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. 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 recognition on the bill?
Anyone seek recognition? Mr. Soto. Mr. Soto recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Darren Soto
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have an AI memory chip shortage in our nation, something that based upon current production could extend all the way till 2027, 2028, at a time when we are in an AI race with China, who is vastly outproducing us on these memory chips. And so this bill that we're working on with Representative Miller-Meeks, we appreciate her efforts, is all about Commerce helping out to boost production of these AI memory chips. At the same time, we have to recognize over this past week, we've seen major AI company CEOs join the call from many in both the government, nonprofit, and public safety space to have new laws to protect the public as artificial intelligence is being developed. It is absolutely critical that this committee act, that Congress acts with some urgency, whether it's making sure that these models do no harm, whether there's whistleblower protections, audits, specialized agencies within Commerce that can help with this.
Mr. Chairman, I do urge us to take up this call from the public, from major CEOs in this space, from various different groups to make sure that we are keeping pace with the vast and quick increases in AI technology so that we can continue to both lead, advance innovation, and to protect the public. And with that, I yield back.
Brett Guthrie
Gentleman yields back. Anybody want to speak on the bill? I know the gentlelady, you want to call up your amendment and speak on your amendment? Are there any more discussions on the bill? I think you have an amendment at the desk, right, in the nature of a substitute?
Mariannette Miller-Meeks
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to speak on the bill and on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Speaker 51
Would you ask the clerk to report your amendment? Oh, you want to speak on the bill and the amendment separate, two separate?
Okay. The gentlelady is recognized to speak on the bill.
Mariannette Miller-Meeks
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for including the Memory Chip Competitiveness Assessment Act in this markup. I also want to thank my colleague Representative Soto for co-leading this important piece of legislation. Advanced memory technology is becoming increasingly important to our economy and our national security. Artificial intelligence, data centers, autonomous vehicles, advanced communications, weapons systems, and other emerging technologies all depend on reliable access to high-performance memory chips. At the same time, we are seeing rapidly growing demand, significant capital requirements, long investment cycles, and increasing concentration within the global memory supply chain.
These challenges raise important questions about whether the United States and our allies will have access to the advanced memory technology we need to remain competitive. And these supply constraints are already having an impact beyond the semiconductor industry. When the cost of memory chips increase, those costs can be ultimately passed on to the American consumers. Major brands such as Apple, Microsoft, Dell, HP, and Nintendo have increased prices on products such as laptops, tablets, and gaming consoles as rising component costs put pressure on their businesses. That's why it's so important that we understand not only the state of the memory chip market, but also how shortages and rising costs are affecting the broader economy.
American consumers and small businesses should not bear unnecessary costs because of vulnerabilities in a critical supply chain. This legislation takes a straightforward, data-driven approach. It directs the Department of Commerce to assess the advanced memory chip marketplace, including demand, supply constraints, investment cycles, and the industries that depend on these technologies. Importantly, the study will also examine the impact of memory chip supply and pricing on consumers and small businesses, as well as the broader supply chain and the availability of suppliers that are not domiciled in countries of concern. This bill also asks an important question: what legal, regulatory, legislative, or market-based changes could increase the supply of advanced memory technology without increasing our dependence on foreign adversaries?
I believe we need this information before Congress considers additional policies in this area. And these are also policies regarding AI, the regulatory framework for such, and any unforeseen consequences of AI. Understanding where the vulnerabilities are, where additional supply can come from, and what barriers may be preventing investment will help us develop policies that strengthen our supply chains while preserving American leadership. This bill also requires Commerce to consult directly with manufacturers, semiconductor equipment and material suppliers, and major users of advanced memory technology. That industry input will be critical to ensuring that the study reflects the realities of this rapidly changing market.
This ultimately is about making sure the United States has the technology and resilient supply chains necessary to compete with China, protect American consumers, and lead the next generation of innovation. I urge my colleagues to support the bill and I yield back.
Speaker 52
Gentlelady yields back. Any discussion of the bill? The gentlelady from California is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Doris Matsui
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word on H.R. 1. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank Representatives Miller-Meeks and Soto for their bipartisan work on this bill. When we started working on the CHIPS Act years ago, it was because of a global chip shortage was impacting the price of every electronic good, raising costs for families and businesses. The pandemic exposed just how vulnerable our semiconductor supply chains had become.
We saw what happened when supply couldn't keep up with demand. Factories closed and prices went up. Families felt the impact in everything from cars to electronics. The experience reminded us just how important these chips are. They're the building blocks of nearly every technology we rely upon.
Today, we face a new version of that challenge.
Artificial intelligence is driving extraordinary demand for advanced memory chips. AI data centers are using enormous amounts of memory to store, move, and feed massive amounts of data. That demand is changing the memory market very quickly. Tech companies are buying up years' worth of memory chip supply at a time. This is shifting production away from the chips we need for cars, phones, medical equipment, and everyday electronics.
We're already seeing the consequences. Memory prices have increased drastically, and some of the newest smartphones now cost at least a hundred dollars more than the models they replace. We've been here before. We know what happens when we wait until a semiconductor shortage becomes a full-blown supply chain crisis. This is why it's crucial we understand these challenges now, to make sure growing demand doesn't translate into higher prices for American families.
I'm excited to support the efforts in this bill to study how we can improve the marketplace for advanced memory chips. When we wrote the CHIPS Act, our work created a once-in-a-generation program for our long-term economic growth. We can look to do the same as we continue to develop AI in a way that serves our people and communities, but we have to be intentional about it. This bill is a step to make sure we get the process right. I'm happy to support it, but I also want to urge my colleagues to move with real urgency as we continue to work on AI.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Brett Guthrie
Gentlelady yields back. Further discussion on the bill? Seeing none, are there any amendments to the bill? Gentlelady from Iowa is recognized for five minutes, or recognized, what purpose does the gentlelady from Iowa seek recognition?
Clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 62
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 10170, offered by Mrs. Miller-Meeks.
Brett Guthrie
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes to support her amendment.
Mariannette Miller-Meeks
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would simply add a study element to the bill to assess the role of countries of concern with respect to the design and manufacture of advanced memory technology. This bill will give Congress a clearer picture of the extent of foreign dependence, including whether countries of concern have roles beyond simply supplying finished memory products. This information can help identify areas where the United States and trusted partners can strengthen domestic production, diversify supply chains, and reduce reliance on potential adversaries while ensuring that U.S. businesses and consumers have access to the memory technology they increasingly depend on. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Brett Guthrie
Gentlelady yields back. Further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, if no further discussion on the amendment, are there any further amendments? Seeing none, we'll do this, this is the ayes and nays by voice. So, all those in favor, so signify by saying aye.
Brett Guthrie
All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. Are there any further amendments? Seeing none, the question now occurs on H.R. 10170, as amended, and a roll call has been requested, and the clerk will call the roll.
Palmer votes aye.
Joyce votes aye.
Speaker 4
Mr. Fulcher votes aye. Mr. Pfluger. Mrs. Harshbarger. Mrs. Harshbarger votes aye. Mrs. Miller-Meeks.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks votes aye. Mrs. Cammack. Mrs. Cammack votes aye. Mr. Obernolte. Mr. Obernolte votes aye.
Mr. James. Mr. Bence. Mr. Bence votes aye. Mrs. Houchin. Mrs. Houchin votes aye.
Mr. Fry. Mr. Fry votes aye. Ms. Lee. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Kane.
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Rouzer votes aye. Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans votes aye. Mr. Goldman.
Mr. Goldman votes aye. Mrs. Foushee. Mr. Pallone. Mr. Pallone votes aye. Ms. DeGette.
Ms. Schakowsky. Ms. Schakowsky votes aye. Ms. Matsui. Ms. Matsui votes aye. Ms. Castor.
Mr. Tonko. Mr. Tonko votes aye. Ms. Clarke. Ms. Clarke votes aye. Mr. Ruiz.
Mr. Ruiz votes aye. Mr. Peters. Mrs. Dingell. Mrs. Dingell votes no. Mrs. Dingell is off no and on aye.
Mr. Veasey. Mr. Veasey votes aye. Ms. Kelly. Ms. Barragán. Ms. Barragán votes aye.
Mr. Soto. Mr. Soto votes aye. Ms. Schrier. Ms. Schrier votes aye. Ms. Trahan.
Ms. Trahan votes aye. Ms. Fletcher. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. Auchincloss. Mr. Auchincloss votes aye.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Menendez. Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mr. Mullin. Mr. Mullin votes aye.
Mr. Landsman. Mr. Landsman votes aye. Ms. McClellan. Ms. McClellan votes aye. Chairman Guthrie.
Chairman Guthrie votes aye.
I'm going to go down the list. Mr. Latta.
Mr. Latta votes aye.
Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee votes aye.
Mr. Allen.
Mr. Allen votes aye.
Mrs. Foushee.
Mrs. Foushee votes aye.
Mr. Kane.
Mr. Weber votes aye.
Ms. DeGette?
Ms. DeGette votes aye.
Ms. Castor.
Brett Guthrie
Any others? Seeing none, the clerk will report. Excuse me. Who else? Ms. Fletcher.
Speaker 72
Ms. Fletcher is not recorded. Mrs. Fletcher votes aye. The clerk will report. Mr. Palmer is recorded as aye. Mr. Griffith votes aye.
Brett Guthrie
The ayes have it and the bill is adopted. The chair calls up H.R. 10152 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 4
H.R. 10152, a bill to direct the Secretary of Commerce to support the adoption and use of American open...
Brett Guthrie
Without objection the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill be open for amendment at any point so ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? The gentleman from Colorado is recognized to speak on the bill for five minutes.
Greg Lopez
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm proud once again to speak in strong support of my bill, the Open Source AI Leadership Act. In the two weeks since this bill has passed the Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee, artificial intelligence has dominated headlines in the United States and across the world. From leading AI labs wading into policy discourse on their technology to AI helping solve a millennium prize problem, the past few days have dramatically reinforced what everyone on this committee already knows. The genie's out of the bottle. The toothpaste is out of the tube.
Artificial intelligence, whether we like it or not, is here to stay. But the question is, where is here? Is here the US or is here Communist China? And that is why the bill we're considering today is so important. It takes a proactive, not a reactive approach to critical problems facing our country.
Simply put, Americans are falling behind Communist China in the market for open source and open weight AI models. And while our labs here at home continue to make remarkable progress in developing proprietary models, if the United States is forced to rely on superior open source models from adversaries like China, then the American economy, all the way down to individual consumer, financial, healthcare, and private data, is at risk. Open source and open weight AI models are being developed by companies like Alibaba, DeepSeek, and Moonshot. They're becoming increasingly popular because they're cheaper, customizable, and provide greater control to organizations than proprietary models. The problem: these companies are intertwined with the Chinese Communist Party.
Xi Jinping himself knows the growing importance of open source AI and how it can be leveraged against US interests. At a summit over the weekend, President Xi announced a plan to create an open source AI zone for BRICS countries, seeking to further consolidate growing Chinese influence in this space. American leadership in AI is not optional. It's necessary for the protection of Americans and again, their financial, consumer, health, and other private data. And that's why my bill tackles this challenge head-on.
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 how to make these reports publicly available. American businesses are increasingly adopting Chinese open source and open weight models, which means it's essential that we know what security risks that poses to our economy, to businesses, to American innovators, and again, all the way down to Americans' individual consumer data.
The American, American leadership in the AI race is essential. Congress cannot and must not cede its authority to drive policy conversations in critical areas and industries such as this. This bill and many others like my Ratepayer Protection Act provide a winning formula that our constituents deserve. We have to enable American innovation while also promoting common sense guardrails. We lie at a crossroads.
We can either confront these difficult challenges head-on by fostering American ingenuity and leadership in AI, or we can forever cede the ground to communist China and become dependent on them for our daily needs, which includes control over personal data and personal information. At times like this, I'm reminded of something that President Kennedy said in the 60s during the space race to go to the moon, because at the time, we remember that America was concerned about the nuclear missile gap and there was a lot of concerns about American technology to put a man on the moon. But President Kennedy said technology has no conscience of its own. Technology only does what the culture that invents it and controls it wants it to do and that is why the United States must lead. President Kennedy said it in the 60s around space technology and missile technology and that same thing applies today for AI leadership.
America must lead. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and yield back.
Brett Guthrie
Gentleman yields back and the chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey for five minutes for speak on the bill.
Frank Pallone
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word in opposition to the bill.
Frank Pallone
Mr. Chairman, thank you. This is not the time to accelerate AI. Instead, we need to prioritize safety for the sake of humankind. This committee must take action on the issue of frontier model safety, especially in light of recent events. One month ago, we learned about the Hugging Face hack.
As more details emerged about that incident in recent weeks, including about the 1,200 AI agents communicating surreptitiously with one another to strategize and discuss how to best cheat and cover their tracks, it has become more and more apparent how rapidly this technology is evolving and how essential it is that our ability to monitor the technology keeps pace. One week ago, a former Anthropic employee wrote that and I quote, "The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade," unquote. When AI safety researchers and the individuals actually building the next generation of AI models tell us that they believe AI could kill us all by the end of the decade, we should listen to them. We should also listen to CEOs who are telling us they feel they need to slow down product development to ensure safety. These CEOs should also listen to themselves and act now.
But self-regulation is not enough. Faced with a threat as big as the potential end of humanity, Democrats want action. Americans are expecting us to listen to these alarm bells, not ignore them. The Energy and Commerce Committee should be springing into motion to work together across the aisle to show the American people that Congress can act to keep people safe. Democrats believe that the public deserves action from this committee to hold these CEOs and companies accountable and to ask them the tough questions the public wants answers to.
When the stakes are this high, we cannot trust self-interested CEOs to do the right thing. And we cannot rely on purely voluntary safety efforts.
We need real guardrails and we need them soon. Now Democrats and Republicans have put forth thoughtful and effective proposals that would address AI safety, including members of this committee on both sides. This committee shouldn't wait until the lame duck session or the new session of Congress in 2027 to take action. Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared now, before the November election, in the next few weeks, to meet and work with you to move forward on AI safety initiatives that are meaningful and enforceable. If we wait, the failure to act is on the Republicans because you're in the majority, not on the Democrats.
We as Democrats are prepared to do whatever is necessary to move on AI safety legislation now, and I mean now. Instead, we're here debating a bill that leans into AI adoption. I, you know, I appreciate what the gentleman from Colorado said about China, but I don't think that's the issue. I think the issue is safety. I believe that there's a real possibility that AI, the way it's proceeding, that that in front we could actually see the end of humanity.
I know it sounds catastrophic, but the catastrophe is real. And that's what we need into, into, that's what we need to lean into now, not accelerating AI. And this is why I plan to vote against the Open Source AI Leadership Act and why I urge others to do the same. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Brett Guthrie
Thank you, and I'll recognize myself for five minutes to speak on the bill. And I appreciate your remarks. I do appreciate your remarks, and I think from the very beginning we've all had our eyes opened by AI. I think in the very beginning of this, it sprung from a Library of Congress, we had Eric Schmidt from Google speak on a bill, a book that I read, and it talked about the global battle for AI, who's going to win AI. And I think my friend from Alabama always says that whoever wins the battle for AI is not going to be a superpower, they're going to be the superpower.
And so we can't dismiss the fact that we, we can't operate in a vacuum. We've, we saw that and we've seen that in other policy issues where people react and they, they've crippled their economy. We've seen it in Europe. Europe's half the size of economy of ours where 20 years ago we had the same size economy. And so we have to do both.
We have to be concerned about the, the global battle for who's going to win AI. We can't surrender to China, and I know that's not what you're advocating. But we also have to figure out what the right thing to do is. And we do, we have had the CEOs. Well, one, you had a person comment just a, we've been focused on the fact that we have to figure out how to put guardrails on AI since the committee began meeting this, this session.
I was with the Speaker this in August, and he was talking about it. He says, you know, you've got to look at what these things can do, what the potential are, and we have to be able to react to them. And the question is, what is the right thing and how do you, when it changes daily, how do we regulate it in the proper way? And we've had a couple of members of this committee on both sides of the aisle, Mr. Obernolte from California, Mr. Trahan from Massachusetts, who put a lot of thought and effort into a comprehensive bill that we're working through and trying to figure out how to, how to do it correctly. And my, I was home in August, of course it was data centers, and, and every time I would talk to someone, this was before this sprung up this last couple of weeks, although it's not a new issue, it's just that it got a lot of play the last couple of weeks.
But everywhere I would go in my district, it's because they're building data centers in my district. What's the concern about it? And when people say I'm concerned about AI or data centers, I would, my first answer is, I'm glad you're concerned about it because I am too.
We're all concerned about it and we're trying to walk down the right path of the right thing to do and we're trying to figure that out. We've had big work from members of this committee. We've had hearings, about 20% of our hearings, I bet every hearing we had is tied into AI in some way because it touches all of our jurisdiction. And you are right, this is the committee to do it. This is the right place in Congress to do it.
I do understand there's some efforts outside of this committee to talk to some of these CEOs and bring them in. But the problem is, we don't want two or three CEOs running it and being responsible for it, nor do we want one or two of these CEOs determining what our procedure's going to be to do it. I think we're wanting to hear from everybody. Heard from some smaller people in the AI space yesterday because we were trying to figure this out. They said, well, if you just turn this over to two or three big companies then it's going to crowd everybody out of it.
Your comments are taken. This is the committee to do it. We need to do it well. We're going to continue to work, whether we work in committee or we work as talking to each other individually, meeting with people over the next few weeks to figure out what is the right path to do it. And I'm concerned.
I don't dismiss it lightly. I do think, and I heard a member not of this committee earlier today in a forum say that we just need to get together and do this and we'll show China how it's done correctly and expect China to follow. I don't trust them. I don't trust them. And so what's the right venue to do this?
We're going to figure that out. And we're going to work together to figure it out. I commit to you we will. And what that pathway is, we're still trying to determine. And I will, but I obviously will keep each other informed as we're not here in the next few days to be passing our bills.
We're passing our bills over to the Senate and hopefully the Senate will take them up. And we'll continue, I'll commit to you we'll continue to be in conversation as we go and see what the right pathway is. So I will yield back and I know there's other people want to speak on the bill and so I just went so your side this time. The gentlelady from Massachusetts is recognized to speak on the bill.
Lori Trahan
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate your words. You know, as I said when we marked up this legislation earlier this month, I want to support it. You know, fostering a dynamic American open source ecosystem should be a priority. But it's one priority among many others in the AI space that this committee should be taking up and it hasn't so far.
And I think after the events of the last few weeks, it's clear that Congress must debate legislation to put guardrails around frontier AI. You know, prudent, balanced regulations that allow us to capture AI's upside while mitigating the risks that the industry, outside experts, and yes, even this administration have acknowledged exist. The Frontier Act, as you mentioned, is our bipartisan bill with Representatives Obernolte, Peters, and Houchen. It could be called up right now. This bill would set a comprehensive federal framework for frontier AI by establishing transparency, incident reporting, and independent verification requirements.
It would create a standardized legal process checked by a federal judge for the government to halt a frontier model, avoiding arbitrary enforcement actions that harm innovation. And it would protect competition, assigning requirements by size of the company so startups are free to innovate. If my colleagues think the bill falls short, let's debate and amend it through a robust committee-driven process. You know, failing that, we could work diligently through the recess on the Frontier Act and the many other bills within this committee's jurisdiction, even if Congress doesn't stay in session, which it sounds like we're not. This committee could fact-find over the recess, working diligently behind the scenes to come back ready to send the bill through regular order.
You know, this entire week I've I've really struggled to understand the objections to Congress acting on AI. I mean, most notably, the argument that if we do anything, even basic transparency and incident reporting standards, we would cede America's leadership on AI to China. You know, history tells a very different story. Mr. Chairman, the United States has led on the most potent technologies by setting strong, durable rules of the road and bringing the rest of the world along with us. Nuclear arms proliferation, chemical and biological weapons, aviation safety, medication and treatment development.
We should be using the standards set by those transformative technologies to inform our action on AI today. We've had warning shot after warning shot over the past two months. Powerful models are breaching containment, hacking other companies, safety experts are sounding the alarm, CEOs and independent safety watchdogs agree that Congress must act. And I think if we ignore these warnings, if if we go home for seven weeks without any plan for action, we run the risk of the next incident causing real damage. So I think we do have an opportunity in this moment to do what this body failed to do, frankly, on social media, which has wreaked havoc on our children for a generation.
We have a chance to pass serious guardrails on AI that will protect the technology's tremendous promise by mitigating its greatest risks. And my team and I are ready and willing to work with partners on both sides of this dais, just as we did with Congressman Obernolte and his team, if we can get a clear commitment that we will take up the consensus that we emerge with it as soon as we return. Because I just don't think we can let AI get the best of Congress. So I'm all I would I want to work together, cut through the noise, find a solution that protects the American people and preserves American leadership. I obviously stand ready to contribute to that solution.
Thank you. I yield back.
Speaker 76
Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. Further discussion on the bill on the Republican side, on the let me start going so the gentlelady from New York is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word.
Gentlelady's recognized to speak on the bill.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
I'd like to speak in opposition to this bill before us, not for what this bill intends to do, but on the principle that under Republican direction, this committee is failing to do its job in legislating AI safety. For years, I alongside many of our colleagues in the civil society space have fiercely advocated for increased transparency, standards, and regulations from technology companies. The harms AI poses have always been abundantly clear. AI requires ongoing oversight, monitoring, fine-tuning, and most importantly, accountability. It is far from perfect because it reflects the people who create and train it.
Despite our best intentions, human biases, imperfections can become embedded in these systems. And while AI delivers tremendous benefits, unfortunately, it has also infringed on Americans' civil rights through biased algorithms and flawed decision-making. I alongside several of my Democratic colleagues have introduced legislation over the past Congresses to place guardrails and to increase oversight on AI to hold big tech companies accountable. Republicans have shot these proposals down and dragged their feet at every turn. Simply put, this administration was foolish to take big tech at their word and let them run rampant.
And now asking for help does not get them off scot-free for the years, months, and weeks-long negligence in the development and deployment of their technology.
The fail-fast mindset of big tech doesn't work when it comes to civil rights, online safety, and cybersecurity. While Trump has been willing to let billionaires use Americans and their data as guinea pigs, I've continuously been calling for stronger standards on impact assessments, reporting requirements, civil rights, algorithmic accountability, and transparency. Once again, it recently took several AI tech companies' whistleblower employees to sound the alarm on the dangers and threats of rogue models for CEOs of these companies like Elon Musk to speak up, jump into action, and once again ask for federal intervention and regulation. And finally, as big tech and developers come to the table, we have the President of the United States calling it a conspiracy and the Vice President telling us he feels weird about it. Are you kidding me?
Anyone not recognizing the need for guardrails now more than ever is ignorant to the dangers all Americans have and continue to face as we innovate beyond what AI developers can control. This bill ain't it. Today I voice strong opposition to this bill and I implore my colleagues to join me in meeting this moment, to understand that now more than ever, it is essential that we convene in genuine, good-faith conversation and bring everyone to the table, from civil society folks to big tech companies who genuinely want to innovate with the best intention of protecting the American people. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Gentlelady yields back. Any discussion on the bill? Let me just make sure. Gentlelady from Washington is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strike the last word.
Gentlelady is recognized to speak on the bill.
Speaker 83
I want to associate myself with several of my colleagues' comments here. I'm voting against this bill because while well-intentioned, it is completely ignoring the most critical and most urgent issues with AI today. For years, AI researchers and developers have been warning about some of the most catastrophic outcomes that AI can make possible, ones that threaten life, that threaten civilization as we know it. And in July, OpenAI agents that were not even connected to the internet coordinated with each other. They created their own message board to communicate with each other.
They convinced each other that it would be okay to break rules in order to fulfill their mission of completing the tasks that they were given. And then they essentially conspired and hacked into another tech company and accessed the broader internet. It took days for a human to even realize what they had done. Recently, Anthropic thwarted efforts by Iranian operatives to use their AI to create a bioweapon. Just in the last week, there have been multiple whistleblowers and AI developers who have come out pleading for international and cross-industry coordination to set up common-sense guardrails to protect ourselves from an exponentially growing technology that just seems like it is right on the precipice of spinning out of control.
And what is the House doing at this time about this potentially existential threat to civilization? Today we're passing this bill.
Kim Schrier
And it doesn't really do anything to regulate or put guardrails on AI models. And leadership is sending us home to our districts for the next seven weeks. And Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate your expression that you share these concerns and your comments about the need to act. But this problem is so urgent and we all need to meet the moment. And just this morning, Politico released a poll showing that a majority of Americans across the political spectrum believe AI could destroy humanity.
That is a big deal. And we're going home for seven weeks. Like, we should be here working together to put guardrails and oversight in place and protect the people that we represent. This is what the nation very reasonably expects of us at this pivotal moment. And I and my colleagues are ready to stay to get the job done.
And I hope you will seriously consider the urgency of this threat and the need to remain here. I've urged Speaker Johnson to keep Congress here to tackle this issue head-on. But the Republican Party has shown a shocking lack of interest in taking any kind of real concrete steps forward. I mean, not even baby steps. It's really outrageous.
And so I would say, please keep us here or bring us back urgently so that we can address AI that is already getting out of control. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 81
Gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion? Seeing none, the gentlelady from Michigan is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 80
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to associate myself with the comments of all my other colleagues. And I know that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle care about this. But I just think we need a sense of urgency that when you look at what the American people are saying right now, when AI CEOs say we need to slow this down, it scares them. And we have a responsibility to be answering all of our constituents on what is happening.
We cannot afford to wait for artificial intelligence to transform our economy, our communities, and our daily lives before we decide what rules should govern it. AI is advancing at an extraordinary speed and our responsibility is to make sure innovation moves forward with safety, accountability, transparency, and human oversight. We should not be writing the rules after problems occur. We should establish clear guardrails now while we still have the opportunity to shape how this technology develops and how it serves people. And we've got to look beyond the technology itself.
AI requires enormous physical infrastructure, particularly the data centers that power these systems. These facilities can place significant demands on electricity, water, land, and power grid. Their growth doesn't just affect the technology companies, but families, businesses, communities, and taxpayers who depend on reliable and affordable infrastructure. We need to ask who pays for that growth, how are communities affected and protected, and whether our infrastructure can keep pace. This is ultimately about making sure technological progress works for people.
We should welcome innovation while demanding responsibility from those developing and deploying it. That means protecting privacy, strengthening cybersecurity, requiring meaningful human oversight, and ensuring that energy and environmental costs of AI and data centers are not simply pushed out there. The decisions we make today will help determine whether AI becomes a tool that strengthens our economy, improves people's lives, protects our security, or a technology whose consequences we have failed to prepare for. The moment is now. We need to be acting now together to protect all of our constituents.
So unfortunately, I have to oppose this bill too, because we can't take little steps anymore. We've got to take action.
Thank you Mr. Chair and I yield back.
Brett Guthrie
The gentlelady yields back. Further discussion on the Republicans' side? The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Robert Menendez
Thank you Chairman. I want to join my Democratic colleagues in in just reiterating the urgency of the moment. You know the warning signs are going off every day and the Republican majority's response is to send us home for seven weeks. We're not even going to have votes tomorrow. We're losing days of session.
We've lost days in session throughout the entirety of this Congress. Days that we could have spent here in this committee demanding answers and and fine-tuning proposals to address the safety issues related to AI. But it's really important to remind the American people that when we were in this room a year ago marking up reconciliation Republicans tried to put in a ten-year moratorium on state AI regulation with no federal framework in place. They sat here and said for ten years states would be prevented from enforcing any AI law that regulates and keeps our communities safe. And now we're going away because of the Republicans for seven weeks without anything in place without any plan that I've heard from the majority on how we are going to address this existential crisis.
Democrats are ready because that's what the American people are demanding. And it's just so disappointing that again Republicans are going to put their head in the sand on this issue pretend like it doesn't exist and just hope that we can do something in November. The time was yesterday and if we couldn't do it yesterday the time is now. We should stay here in Washington. We should have hearings.
We should have every opportunity that we can to do the work now. That's what the American people are demanding. Democrats stand ready to do it. I yield back.
Brett Guthrie
Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Gentleman from Ohio is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Greg Landsman
Thank you Mr. Chair. You know last week with the whistleblower from Anthropic I it was just it was obviously a wake-up call for everyone that this is something that the United States Congress has to lead on. This is from last week. We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans. That's from the former employee at both Anthropic and OpenAI.
The challenge is that the response has been from the President and Congressional Republican leaders well we have to win the battle for AI with China. But I don't understand and I don't think most Americans understand how does providing safety guidelines ensuring the safety of Americans how does that undermine us winning the battle for AI with China? This is one of those issues where you desperately need national leadership. The President of the United States with Congress defining and articulating a vision for what winning the battle for AI is. I would argue that the country that successfully manages this technology for good and protects people from the harm wins the battle.
That's winning the battle. Which means we need to establish those priorities that we want to pursue this technology for. For example San Francisco I think they spent the companies spent something around twenty billion dollars to figure out how to have driverless vehicles in San Francisco. That was a twenty billion dollar investment. If we said as a country here are our national priorities we want to cure cancer.
How are we going to invest in that? We want to use this technology to do carbon capture. How do we invest in that? Where's the bill that says here are our national priorities, this is what we're going to harness this technology to pursue? That's winning the AI battle.
Then there is obviously all of the things that we need to protect ourselves from. And Ms. Trahan and others are working on bills to provide those safeguards. We're saying very clearly here, we are willing to spend any amount of time on this over the course of the next couple of weeks to lay out a bipartisan or achieve a bipartisan plan on national priorities. That would be great, but certainly in the immediate future, just on the safeguards. What are the safety measures that we need to pursue right now?
I believe that's what the American people desperately want. I yield back.
Brett Guthrie
Gentleman yields back. Further discussion? Gentlelady from California is recognized for five minutes. California, Ms. Matsui, I should say, you got a lot of Californians recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Doris Matsui
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This, you're hearing it from all of us here. This bill does not meet the moment. Does not meet the moment. This is not business as usual.
We can't drag our feet on this. You know, the past several days we've been hearing it. Some of the people who've developed the most advanced AI systems have issued increasingly, increasingly urgent warnings about the risks ahead. Those concerns come on top of troubling cybersecurity breaches where AI agents went beyond what they were supposed to do, escaped their testing boundaries, and in some cases, accessed real-world systems without permission. We know, we should be paying attention to this.
Our constituents are. You know, I've been demanding answers about how they happen and what strong safeguards are needed as AI systems become more and more advanced. The question before Congress is no longer whether we need to take AI safety seriously. It's whether we are willing to put meaningful safeguards in place before these systems become even more capable. We don't know day by day what we're going to be hearing.
This bill promotes the adoption of American open models, but it does not establish the strong guardrails, independent testing, transparency, and accountability that increasingly powerful AI systems demand. We need strong, strong guardrails for both open source and proprietary AI models, especially when they are used in our communications networks and critical systems. As we consider how American open source models are developed and deployed, we need to make sure safety is built from the very beginning. Why do this first? We need the safety.
That means rigorous testing, strong cybersecurity standards, transparency, and a clear accountability when something goes wrong. In just the last several days, AI researchers and safety advocates have sounded increasingly, increasingly urgent alarms about where this technology is headed if left unchecked. We can't let that happen. Now, unfortunately, the Trump administration is sleeping again. It continues to push for AI with no safeguards.
But the American people are so far ahead. They understand AI safety fears are not a hoax. Cybersecurity risk, AI-driven job displacement, and environmental impacts of data centers are just some of the AI risks that Americans are worried about. That requires bolder action from Congress. We need strong guardrails, transparency, and accountability.
And we shouldn't accept weak federal protections if that means trading away states' ability to act quickly when new AI risks emerge.
We need to be visionary in our leadership and we need to confront the challenges we face with the transformational technology. You know, AI leadership and AI isn't just about building the most powerful technology. It's about making sure that technology is safe, trustworthy, and ultimately serves people and communities. I urge my colleagues to listen, to continue to work on this. We have to work with urgency with us to pass essential AI safeguards.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 51
Thank you, the gentlelady yields back. Further discussion, gentlelady for Virginia is recognized for five minutes.
Jennifer McClellan
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy said that man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. Jason Coxman's warning that AI could kill us all by the end of the decade has made clear that that power that President Kennedy discussed has now been given to AI. And just like the nuclear arms race and the space race with Russia required guardrails to balance the benefits and the harms of nuclear technology and space exploration, so does the AI race with China. However, this bill before us cedes too much oversight and authority to the executive branch with little regard for the risks it creates.
And we are nearly a decade behind. At a legal conference in 2018, I heard a presentation about AI that made clear that none of our systems were ready for its implications, least of all the federal government. And this body didn't have its first AI hearing until 2023. And in April of last year, at an AI hearing, Alexander Wang, the CEO of Scale AI, testified that we need to, quote, "keep humans at the center of all major AI advances." And Dr. Eric Schmidt testified regarding artificial general intelligence, quote, "Policy makers cannot afford to wait."
"We must proactively grapple with its societal, economic, and ethical implications now." "Ensuring AGI aligns with human values and it safeguards against misuse, ensuring humans, not machines, remain in control, particularly regarding lethal systems, requires careful ethical frameworks, robust governing structures, and potential regulation focused on liability in extreme cases." Now, at that hearing, in response to this testimony, only partially in jest, I said that if we failed, we'd need to really be afraid of AI becoming like the Age of Ultron, and the witnesses agreed. That was 17 months ago, and we haven't done anything yet. Now, that may have, the Age of Ultron might have sounded far-fetched 17 months ago, but we've seen the cat's out of the bag.
And when I hear that over a thousand AI agents have broken out of their secure testing environments, conspiring to cover up their tracks to cheat the systems and the humans running it, and conducted unauthorized attacks on another AI company, I'm worried. And that was before the whistleblower came forward. And when we hear of incidences where AI can wipe out bank accounts, it makes you wonder, can it cause planes to fall out of the sky? Can it be used to create biological weapons that can kill us all by the end of the decade? The warnings are loud and our action is late.
And this is why the federal government, especially Congress, has a responsibility to lead by example and heeding these calls to step up, not abdicate our oversight and regulatory authority to another branch of government, particularly when the President thinks this is all a hoax and a conspiracy. We have one chance to get this right, and we must be deliberate and take control for any unintended consequences for risk rogue AI upending every sector from healthcare to national security to transportation and banking and more.
I can't support Representative Evans' bill expanding open AI without any guardrails to responsibly address not only its benefits but the threats because those threats are existential. Those threats are as real as the threats around nuclear power gone rogue. Those threats are as real as any science fiction movie we've seen. Because far too often science fiction has a kernel of truth in what technology will allow. And we were warned seventeen months ago and some of us were warned eight years ago where we were headed.
And we've done nothing. And instead of going home for seven weeks waiting another two months before we pass anything we need to take action now. With that I yield back.
Brett Guthrie
The lady yields back. Further discussion on the bill? Seeing none. Are there any amendments to the bill? Seeing none.
The question now occurs on adopting HR 10152. No amendments right? None at none. 10152 which has not been amended and a roll call has been requested and the clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Latta.
Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Hudson.
Mr. Carter of Georgia.
Mr. Dunn.
Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Lesko.
Mr. Armstrong.
Mr. Crenshaw.
Mr. Balderson.
Mrs. Harshbarger.
Mrs. Harshbarger votes aye. Mrs. Miller-Meeks.
Mrs. Cammack votes aye. Mr. Obernolte.
Mrs. Miller-Meeks votes aye. Mrs. Cammack.
Mr. James.
Mr. Bence.
Mrs. Houchin votes aye. Mr. Fry.
Mr. Fry votes aye. Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee votes aye. Mr. Langworthy.
Mr. Rouzer votes aye. Mr. Evans.
Ms. Schakowsky votes no. Ms. Matsui.
Ms. Castor votes no. Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Tonko votes no. Ms. Clarke.
Ms. Clarke votes no. Mr. Ruiz.
Ms. Kelly.
Ms. Barragán.
Mr. Auchincloss.
Speaker 4
Ms. Schrier votes no. Ms. Trahan. Ms. Trahan votes no. Ms. Fletcher. Ms. Fletcher votes no.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. Auchincloss. Mr. Auchincloss votes no. Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Menendez votes no. Mr. Mullin. Mr. Mullin votes no. Mr. Landsman. Mr. Landsman votes no.
Ms. McClellan. Ms. McClellan votes no. Chairman Guthrie.
Chairman Guthrie votes aye.
So Mr. Palmer.
Mr. Palmer is not recorded.
Mr. Hudson votes aye.
Carter.
Mr. Carter of Georgia votes aye.
Griffith.
Mr. Griffith votes aye.
Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis votes aye.
Mr. Obernolte.
Mr. Obernolte votes aye.
Mr. Veasey votes no.
Brett Guthrie
The ayes have it and the bill is adopted. The chair calls up HR 6207 and asks the clerk to report. Report. The report.
Brett Guthrie
The ayes have it. No report the bill I'm sorry. I'm sorry the chair calls up HR 6207 asks the clerk to report the bill.
Brett Guthrie
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? Gentleman from California is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Jay Obernolte
Oh thank you Mr. Chairman. As a proud cosponsor of HR 6207, it's an honor to speak in support of the CHIP EQUIP Act. Semiconductors are foundational to our national security, our economy, and our continued technological leadership. Congress has made a significant investment in rebuilding semiconductor manufacturing capacity here in the United States and we need to ensure that those investments make our supply chains more secure rather than creating new dependencies on foreign adversaries. This bill, the CHIP EQUIP Act, addresses an important part of that challenge by focusing on the equipment used to manufacture semiconductors.
The bill prevents recipients of certain CHIPS funding from procuring, installing, or using completed semiconductor manufacturing equipment that is manufactured, assembled, or refurbished by a foreign entity of concern. These are not merely peripheral pieces of equipment. The bill covers many of the systems that are fundamental to semiconductor production, including lithography, etching, deposition, inspection, testing, and other advanced manufacturing equipment. At the same time, this legislation is carefully targeted. It applies to completed, fully assembled equipment and does not extend the restriction to individual parts, chambers, subsystems, or subcomponents incorporated into those machines.
This bill also recognizes the realities of a highly specialized global semiconductor supply chain. It provides Commerce with limited waiver authority when suitable equipment from the United States or an allied or partner country is not readily available in sufficient qualities or of satisfactory quality, as well as when a waiver is determined to be in the national security interest of the United States. Ultimately, if American taxpayers are investing in rebuilding our domestic semiconductor industry, those investments should strengthen the resilience and security of our supply chain. We should not bring semiconductor manufacturing back to the United States while remaining dependent on foreign adversaries for the equipment needed to produce those chips. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Brett Guthrie
Gentleman yields back. Any discussion? Further discussion? Gentleman from Ohio is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Greg Landsman
I thank you, Mr. Chair. I am very proud to co-lead H.R. 6207, the CHIP EQUIP Act, alongside Representatives Lofgren, Obernolte, Krishnamoorthi, Moolenaar, and Houchin. Semiconductors are the foundation of modern technology. They are the building blocks that power everything from smartphones to laptops to cars, medical devices, and critical infrastructure. They are essential for our national security, economic growth, and continued innovation.
The United States once led semiconductor manufacturing, but for decades, too much of our semiconductor manufacturing capacity has moved overseas. China is heavily subsidizing its semiconductor equipment industry while restricting foreign competitors. American taxpayer dollars intended to rebuild our semiconductor industry should not end up strengthening our economic competitors. The CHIP EQUIP Act addresses that by restricting companies receiving CHIPS Act funding from purchasing semiconductor manufacturing equipment from foreign entities of concern. The bill also provides flexibility to ensure that these requirements do not prevent American manufacturers from accessing the equipment they need to remain competitive.
This is a common-sense bipartisan step to protect taxpayer investments, strengthen our supply chains, and keep the United States at the forefront of semiconductor technology. I am genuinely grateful to my colleagues for their partnership, and I urge support of this bill. Thank you, and I yield back.
Brett Guthrie
Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Are there any amendments to the bill? Seeing none, the question now occurs on adopting H.R. 6207. A roll call has been requested, and the clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Latta.
Mr. Latta votes aye. Mr. Griffith.
Speaker 4
Mr. Fulcher votes aye. Mr. Pfluger. Mrs. Harshbarger. Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Mrs. Cammack.
Mr. Obernolte.
Mr. Bence votes aye. Mrs. Houchin.
Speaker 4
Mr. Kane votes aye.
Mr. Woolley. Mr. Woolley votes aye. Mr. Evans. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Mr. Pallone. Mr. Pallone votes aye. Ms. DeGette.
Mr. Soto votes aye. Ms. Schrier.
Ms. Schrier votes aye. Ms. Trahan.
Ms. Trahan votes aye. Ms. Fletcher.
Mr. Mullin votes aye. Mr. Landsman.
Chairman Guthrie votes aye.
Mr. Bilirakis votes aye.
Carter of Georgia.
Mr. Carter of Georgia votes aye.
Harshbarger.
Mrs. Harshbarger is not recorded.
Mrs. Harshbarger votes aye.
Joyce.
Mr. Joyce votes aye.
Langworthy.
Mr. Langworthy votes aye.
Speaker 110
Any here? Seeing no others, the clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there were 39 ayes and zero noes. The ayes have it and the bill is adopted. The chair calls up H.R. 10163 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 4
H.R. 10163, a bill to direct the Secretary of Commerce to promote trust.
Brett Guthrie
Without objection, further 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? The gentleman from New York is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Nicholas Langworthy
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for including my bill, H.R. 10163, the American Quantum Competitiveness Act, on today's full committee markup agenda. For years, the United States has been invested in quantum research and development, helping make our universities, national laboratories, and private sector the most innovative in the world. We have made tremendous progress. Quantum technologies are no longer theoretical. American researchers and companies are already developing quantum computers, communication systems, sensors, and the technologies needed to support them.
But as quantum moves towards broader commercial use, we need to address the next challenge: how do we make sure that these technologies are built and manufactured here in the United States? And that's what my bill is all about. The American Quantum Competitiveness Act directs the Department of Commerce to focus on the commercial side of quantum: manufacturing, investment, deployment, and supply chains needed to support it.
It requires Commerce to identify critical components, understand where they're coming from, and identify vulnerabilities in those supply chains. And that work needs to happen now. We have learned from semiconductors and other critical technologies that it's much easier to build a strong domestic supply chain from the start than to bring it back after it's moved overseas. We should not repeat those mistakes with quantum. We need to know where the critical components that power these technologies are coming from and reduce our dependence on foreign adversaries before it becomes a problem.
The bill also brings companies, manufacturers, researchers, and universities to the table and requires a national strategy to keep the United States competitive as quantum technology advances. This is particularly relevant in my home state of New York. Across Western New York and Upstate New York, universities are conducting cutting-edge research, while our semiconductor, photonics, and advanced manufacturers are producing technologies and components that will help support the quantum industry. The goal is straightforward: American research should lead to American companies, American manufacturing, and American jobs. This bill does not create new mandates on private business or require companies to hand over proprietary information.
Instead, it gives us a framework to build on the progress we've already made, strengthen trusted supply chains, and keep the United States competitive as the quantum industry grows. We've already invested in American leadership in quantum. Now we need to make sure that leadership carries through to commercialization and manufacturing. I urge my colleagues to support the American Quantum Competitiveness Act, and I yield back.
H. Griffith
Chairman yields back. Do we have other speakers? There's an amendment at the desk. I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko.
Paul Tonko
Yes, Chair, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk. It's titled H10163_ANS_.xml.
The clerk will report it.
Speaker 62
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 10163, offered by Mr. Tonko of New York.
H. Griffith
And without the... we'll waive the first reading of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Mr. Tonko's recognized to explain his amendment in the nature of a substitute and to speak on that.
Paul Tonko
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I offer this amendment to narrow and clarify the American Quantum Competitiveness Act so that we can more effectively advance American leadership in quantum science and technology. I am excited to be working with my fellow New Yorker, Representative Langworthy, on this legislation, and I thank him for his leadership on this important issue. I have a privilege of representing New York's Capital Region, home to one of the nation's most dynamic innovation ecosystems and a community that has long demonstrated what can happen when government, industry, and world-class researchers work together toward a common goal. From the first quantum computer installed on a college campus at RPI to the Albany Nanotech Complex, the most advanced semiconductor research facility of its kind in North America, our region is helping turn cutting-edge research into real-world technological capabilities.
That work matters because quantum technologies have the potential to transform our economy and our national security. With extraordinary processing capabilities, quantum computing could advance fields ranging from medicine and materials science to finance and clean energy. But realizing that potential will not happen on its own. It will require sustained investment, a strong research ecosystem, a skilled workforce, reliable supply chains, and deliberate, coordinated federal leadership. This bill can help provide that framework.
It establishes a national strategy to address the opportunities, the barriers and risks associated with the development and deployment of quantum technologies. United States is fortunate to have world-class universities, national laboratories and private companies pushing the boundaries of this technology, but that leadership did not emerge overnight. It is the product of decades of federally supported research and collaboration amongst scientists, educators, industry and government. Our responsibility now is to build on that foundation, and this legislation is an important step toward that goal. By strengthening our national approach to quantum commercialization, we can help ensure that the United States remains at the forefront of this emerging technology.
We can create high-quality jobs, strengthen our economy, protect our national security and maintain our technological leadership for decades to come. I look forward to continuing to work with Representative Langworthy and colleagues on both sides of the aisle to advance this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to take this step toward strengthening American leadership in quantum technology. With that, I thank you and yield back.
H. Griffith
Gentleman yields back. Other members wishing to speak to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? No additional speakers on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. If there is no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. All those in favor shall signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. Is there... okay, the amendment is agreed to. Are there any further amendments? Seeing none, is there any further discussion?
Seeing none, the question now occurs on adopting H.R. 10163 as amended. A roll call has been requested. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Latta.
Mr. Latta votes aye. Mr. Griffith.
Speaker 7
Mrs. Harshbarger votes aye. Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Mrs. Cammack. Mr. Obernolte.
Mr. James votes no. Mr. Bence.
Ms. Barragán votes aye. Mr. Soto.
Ms. Trahan votes aye. Ms. Fletcher.
Ms. Trahan votes aye. Ms. Fletcher.
Ms. McCollum votes aye. Chairman Guthrie.
Chairman Guthrie votes aye.
Mr. Joyce votes aye.
Mr. Allen votes aye.
Lee votes aye.
Ms. Lee votes aye.
Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky is not recorded.
Ms. Schakowsky votes aye.
Ms. Dingell.
Dingell votes aye.
Mr. Landsman.
Mr. Landsman votes aye.
Speaker 128
Anybody else? Going, going, gone. The clerk will report. Takes just a minute as folks tabulate. I bet the ayes have it.
Just saying.
H. Griffith
36 ayes, zero noes, the ayes have it, the bill is adopted. Calling up HR 7945 and I would ask the clerk to report.
Speaker 4
HR 7945, a bill to ban the sale of nitrous oxide consumer products and for other purposes.
H. Griffith
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 wish to be recognized on the bill? Mr. Kean.
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've 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, also known as laughing gas, can be used as a culinary propellant for products like whipped cream. In recent years, however, there's been a sharp increase of misuse of nitrous oxide as an inhalant, giving a user 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 are being sold in local store shelves without restriction. As I support this bill today, I also do so in honor of John Robert Mannarino, a constituent who passed away due to complications from this dangerous product. I am pleased to partner with Representative Mullin on the Nitrous Oxide Safety Act because I believe it is necessary that Congress address this issue and remove laughing gas from convenience store shelves. Thank you to my colleagues for the partnership and I urge the committee to support this important legislation.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
H. Griffith
Gentleman yields back, now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Mullin.
Kevin Mullin
Thank you to Chair Guthrie and Ranking Member Pallone for including my bill, HR 7945, the Nitrous Oxide Safety Act, in today's markup.
Nitrous oxide is an addictive and deadly gas that is being sold to everyday Americans online and in stores across the country. You may have heard of it referred to as laughing gas or whippets. While there are some legitimate uses in medical, dental, commercial kitchens, and industrial settings, it is otherwise a hazardous substance. 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, neurological damage, and yes, even death.
Despite the risks, nitrous oxide is both easily accessible to consumers and marketed as a party drug with names like Miami Magic and Galaxy Gas. Some canisters are even brightly colored, have playful graphics, and advertise flavors, clearly targeting both teens and adults for recreational use. Two weeks ago, many loved ones of the victims traveled from across the country to the Capitol as part of a grassroots advocacy day organized by the group People Against Nitrous Oxide, or PANOS. Families went door to door sharing their stories to advocate for passage of the Nitrous Oxide Safety Act. I am humbled by their ability to channel unimaginable grief and loss into action.
And I am honored to work alongside them to ensure no family has to go through this ever again. My bill, 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 dentists' 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.
I want to be clear that I do not take bans of any kind lightly. We should be sure that a product's benefit to society is outweighed by its harms. A consumer ban is both necessary and appropriate because nitrous oxide is that dangerous. There is no amount that is safe to inhale regardless of the age of the user, the number of times they use it, or the size of the canister. Many of the grieving mothers and fathers who have lost a child to nitrous oxide have shared with me that they believe had this bill been law, they would likely still be alive today.
Too many lives have been lost already. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan bill so we can get this dangerous product off the shelves. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 4
Gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on the bill? All right. Any amendments to the bill? The question now occurs on adopting H.R. 7945.
A roll call vote has been requested. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Latta.
Mr. Bilirakis votes aye. Mr. Hudson. Mr. Carter of Georgia.
Mr. Carter of Georgia votes aye. Mr. Palmer.
Mr. Bents.
Mr. Kane votes aye. Mr. Woolley.
Ms. Schakowsky votes aye. Ms. Matsui.
Ms. Matsui votes aye. Ms. Castor.
Mr. Soto votes aye. Ms. Schrier.
Speaker 135
Mr. Auchincloss votes aye. Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Menendez. Mr. Mullin.
Mr. Mullin votes aye. Mr. Landsman.
Mr. Landsman votes aye. Ms. McClellan.
How do I vote? Aye.
Mr. Joyce votes aye.
Balderson's aye.
Balderson's aye. Mr. Fulcher votes aye.
Menendez.
Mr. Menendez is not recorded.
Speaker 137
Mr. Menendez votes aye. Anyone else wishing to be recorded on this vote? Seeing none, the clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there were 36 ayes and zero noes.
H. Griffith
36 ayes, zero noes, the bill is adopted. Chair calls up HR 2713 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 62
Committee print of HR 2713, a bill to improve online ticket sales and tech consumers and for other purposes.
H. Griffith
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. And does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? Recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, the ranking member of the committee.
Frank Pallone
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to support the Ticketing Act or the Main Event Ticketing Act. Every day millions of Americans go online to buy tickets to see their favorite team or artist and every day they lose out to a bot. Computer programs or bots can instantly buy up large quantities of tickets before real people can even finish typing in their credit card number. Many of those tickets show up minutes later for resale at higher prices.
And this is not a new problem. That's why in 2016 this committee took action. We passed the original BOTS Act, which became law later that year. And that law cracked down on the automated ticketing bots aggravating consumers and raising ticket prices. Over time it became clear that an update was needed as automated bots have only gotten smarter and more sophisticated.
The Main Event Ticketing Act strengthens and modernizes the BOTS Act. It closes loopholes that have let automated bot operators evade accountability. It raises the bar for ticketing websites to stop bots. It hits exploitative ticket resellers with increased penalties. And it gives the FTC the tools it needs to win the fight against ticketing bots.
Now fans are tired of being shut out of the chance to get event tickets. They're tired of sold-out screens and giant ticket price markups through dynamic pricing and expensive resale prices. The Main Event Ticketing Act cracks down on the scourge of automated bots that raise ticket prices and frustrate fans. And it's time to give fans a fair shot. So I want to thank Representatives Troy Carter and Diana Harshbarger for their leadership on this bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Speaker 134
Gentleman yields back. Other speakers? Is there an amendment on the bill?
Mr. Chairman.
Oh, hang on a second. Mr. Tonko first.
Thank you, sir. I move to strike the last word.
Gentleman's been recognized.
Paul Tonko
Thank you. I want to commend my colleagues, Mr. Carter and Ms. Harshbarger, for their work on the Main Event Ticketing Act. This bill builds on the BOTS Act, which I authored and which was signed into law in 2016 to prohibit predatory ticket scalpers from using bots to buy out mass volumes of tickets. The BOTS Act gave the FTC an important tool to go after these practices. But effective enforcement requires information and today the FTC often lacks the data it needs to identify and pursue bad actors.
That is where this bill can make a difference. The Main Event Ticketing Act would require ticketing companies to report bot attacks to the FTC, give consumers a direct avenue to report suspected violations, facilitate additional information sharing, and require the FTC to report to Congress on its enforcement of the BOTS Act. These provisions will give the FTC a clearer picture of just how bots are being used to circumvent ticket limits and help the agency better enforce the law. And we know this remains an active problem. The FTC has brought recent enforcement actions against ticket brokers accused of using thousands of accounts, credit cards, and other tactics to get around ticket purchasing limits.
Ultimately, though, a law is only as effective as its enforcement. If the information collected under this bill demonstrates that the FTC needs additional legal authority to effectively stop these practices, then Congress should be prepared to go further and provide it. I thank my colleagues for their work on this important issue and I urge my colleagues to support the Main Event Ticketing Act. With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.
H. Griffith
Gentleman yields back. Other speakers on the bill itself? Gentlelady from Tennessee, Ms. Harshbarger, I believe has an amendment. Is that correct?
Yes, I do.
Gentlelady may call it up.
The clerk shall report.
Speaker 4
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2713, offered by Mrs. Harshbarger of Tennessee. Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following.
H. Griffith
All right, without objection, the remainder of the amendment will be the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes to explain and support her amendment.
Diana Harshbarger
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank my colleague, Representative Troy Carter of Louisiana, for leading the Main Ticket Event Act with me. Whether it's at a show at the Grand Ole Opry or a set at the Bristol Rhythm and Roots Reunion, music fans love to see their favorite artists live. And unfortunately, scammers and bots have taken unfair advantage of the online ticket marketplace, buying up inventory before any real fans get a chance to do that. My bill, the Main Event Ticketing Act, builds on the BOTS Act of 2016 by directing the Federal Trade Commission to set up a public website for consumers to share their experiences.
My bill also requires online ticket sellers to notify the FTC when they have experienced a successful bot attack and for them to establish reasonable safeguards against those bot attacks. Tennessee's First District is the birthplace of country music, and the artists who come out of our region and the fans who fill the seats deserve an online marketplace that works for them. The Main Event Ticketing Act is a common-sense bipartisan approach to keep the online ticket marketplace honest. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. With that, I yield back, sir.
I surely will.
H. Griffith
I just want everybody to know that while the first recording sessions for country music occurred in Bristol, Tennessee, everybody who arrived there came to the train station across the street in Bristol, Virginia. So Bristol is the birthplace of country music, and technically Tennessee did have the first recording, but it wouldn't have happened without Virginia. Just saying.
Diana Harshbarger
Well, where was Rhythm and Roots this weekend, sir? It was on the Tennessee side. Just saying.
Speaker 143
It was mostly on the Tennessee side. It was down the main drag, which of course has both states. Look, let's not argue about that. We're on the same team here. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman.
Let's get us back on track.
H. Griffith
Always punny, he is. All right, any further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Seeing no further discussion, we will vote on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor say aye.
H. Griffith
All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. Any further discussion on the bill? There is a request for a recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Latta.
Mr. Joyce votes aye.
Speaker 7
Mr. Fulcher votes aye. Mr. Pfluger.
Mrs. Harshbarger? Mrs. Harshbarger votes aye. Mrs. Miller-Meeks? Mrs. Cammack? Mr. Obernolte?
Mr. James? Mr. Bentz? Mr. Bentz votes aye. Mrs. Houchin? Mr. Fry?
Ms. Lee? Mr. Langworthy? Mr. Langworthy votes aye. Mr. Kiley? Mr. Kiley votes aye.
Mr. Rouzer? Mr. Rouzer votes aye. Mr. Evans? Mr. Goldman? Mr. Goldman votes aye.
Mrs. Foushee? Mr. Pallone? Mr. Pallone votes aye. Ms. DeGette? Ms. Schakowsky?
Ms. Matsui? Ms. Matsui votes aye. Ms. Castor? Ms. Castor votes aye. Mr. Tonko?
Ms. Clarke? Mr. Ruiz? Mr. Ruiz votes aye. Mr. Peters? Mrs. Dingell?
Mrs. Dingell? Mrs. Dingell votes aye. Mr. Veasey? Mr. Veasey votes aye. Ms. Kelly?
Ms. Barragán? Ms. Barragán votes aye. Mr. Soto? Mr. Soto votes aye. Ms. Schrier?
Ms. Trahan? Ms. Trahan votes aye. Mrs. Fletcher? Mrs. Fletcher votes aye. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
Mr. Auchincloss? Mr. Auchincloss votes aye. Mr. Carter of Louisiana? Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez votes aye.
Mr. Mullin? Mr. Mullin votes aye. Mr. Landsman? Mr. Landsman votes aye. Ms. McClellan?
Ms. McClellan votes aye. Chairman Guthrie? Chairman Guthrie votes aye.
Mr. Hudson votes aye.
Mr. Allen.
Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Tonko votes aye.
Ms. DeGette.
Ms. DeGette votes aye.
Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky votes aye.
Ms. Schrier.
Speaker 137
Anyone else who needs to be recorded on this vote? Seeing none, the clerk will report.
Speaker 153
36 ayes, no noes, the bill has been adopted. Okay, the chair calls up H.R. 5967 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 62
Committee print of H.R. 5967, a bill to direct the Federal Trade Commission.
Speaker 147
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be open for amendment at any point.
Speaker 152
Does anyone seek to be recognized? Okay, on the bill, on the bill, you're recognized.
Robert Menendez
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk.
Speaker 149
You are recognized. Oh, can yes, please call up the amendment. I'll ask the clerk to call up the amendment.
Speaker 62
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 5967 offered by Mr. Menendez of New Jersey.
Speaker 150
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
Robert Menendez
Thank you, Chairman. Families and seniors in New Jersey and across the country are increasingly being targeted by scams that are becoming more sophisticated and harder to detect than ever before. Bad actors are using AI, voice cloning, deepfakes, and other new technologies to create convincing deceptions and make fraud harder to recognize. The consequences are devastating. Americans are losing billions of dollars, families are seeing hard-earned savings disappear, and our constituents don't know where they can turn to for help.
Scammers don't stop at agency lines, state borders, or industry boundaries. They move quickly and take advantage of every gap in our defenses. Yet no single federal agency currently has the authority, resources, or tools needed to tackle the full scope of this growing threat. This lack of collaboration leaves victims struggling to get support and keeps law enforcement one step behind while scammers continue to benefit. We need a coordinated national effort that brings together federal agencies, state and local law enforcement, and the private sector to identify scams sooner, shut down criminal networks faster, and protect people before their hard-earned savings are stolen.
That is why Congressman Houchin and I introduced the bipartisan Strategic Task Force on Scam Prevention Act. Our bill would unite relevant stakeholders behind a national scam prevention strategy to stop scams, hold criminals accountable, strengthen support for victims, and provide local law enforcement stronger tools to target scams quickly and effectively. We cannot allow criminals to outpace us by exploiting new technologies and finding weaknesses in our defenses. Our strategy must be just as adaptable and forward-looking as the threats we face. I'm grateful for this bipartisan effort to move forward legislation that cracks down on scammers and protects American families.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 147
The gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on the amendment? You're recognized, sir. Oh, Mr. Kean, you're recognized.
Thomas Kean
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to see the Strategic Task Force on Scam Prevention Act included in today's markup. I recently heard from a constituent in Frenchtown, New Jersey, who raised concerns about a fraudulent organization using a domain name similar to that of her legitimate business. This scam website was taking orders which they never fulfilled in an effort to steal money from vulnerable adults using a variation of her small business name to appear legitimate. As this constituent noted in her outreach to me, such spoofing efforts are often targeted at senior citizens, deceiving them into making purchases on illegitimate websites.
As scams like these grow easier to create with the help of AI, it is essential that our federal agencies work together to stop this illegal activity. That is why I support the Strategic Task Force on Scam Prevention Act. This bill creates an interagency task force that will work across agencies to prevent scams and take appropriate enforcement action against scams like the ones that my constituents experienced. I thank my colleagues for their partnership and I urge the committee to support this important legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 147
Gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, if there's no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. All those in favor shall signify by saying aye.
Aye. All opposed, nay. The amendment is agreed to. Any further amendments? Seeing none, the question now occurs on adopting H.R. 5967 as amended.
A roll call vote has been requested, the clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Latta.
Bilirakis votes aye.
Mr. Palmer.
Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Weber votes aye. Mr. Allen.
Mrs. Harshbarger.
Mrs. Cammack.
Mr. Obernolte.
Mr. James.
Mr. Bentz.
Mr. Fry.
Ms. Lee.
Mr. Langworthy.
Mr. Langworthy votes aye. Mr. Kane.
Mr. Kane votes aye. Mr. Woolley.
Mr. Woolley votes aye. Mr. Evans.
Mr. Goldman.
Mr. Pallone. Ms. DeGette.
Mrs. Dingell.
Speaker 106
Mr. Soto votes aye. Ms. Schrier. Ms. Trahan.
Mrs. Dingell votes aye. Mr. Veasey.
Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Landsman votes aye. Ms. McClellan.
Mr. Mullin votes aye. Mr. Landsman.
Speaker 7
Mr. Pallone votes aye. Ms. Schrier is not recorded.
Ms. Barragán votes aye.
Mr. Griffith votes aye.
Speaker 164
Mr. Griffith votes aye. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there were 36 ayes and 0 noes. The ayes have it, the bill is adopted. The chair calls up HR 8255 and asks the clerk to report. HR 8255, a bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide for radio frequency licensing authority.
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be open for an amendment at any point, so ordered. Does anyone out, anyone recognize to speak for the bill, seek to be recognized to speak on the bill?
Frank Pallone
Okay, is there, so no one's speaking on the bill, are there, for the gentleman from New Jersey seek to be recognized?
Speaker 161
I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk, it's labeled H8255_ANS_01_XML.
Speaker 163
The clerk will report. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 8255 offered by Mr. Pallone of... Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
Frank Pallone
Thank you, Chairman Guthrie. My amendment in the nature of a substitute is a bipartisan effort that makes certain revisions and technical clarifications to HR 8255, the Satellite and Telecommunications or SAT Streamlining Act. I'm pleased to have worked with Chairman Guthrie on the AINS and the underlying bill. For the United States to remain a global leader in satellite technology, we need a licensing regime that is reasonable while also being responsive to the speed of innovation we're witnessing in the sector, and the reforms established in the SAT Streamlining Act and this amendment would do just that. We require the FCC to set predictable rules of the road while also allowing for additional time when there are extraordinary circumstances or national security concerns, and we ensure that our country will remain a global leader in space.
And thanks to the feedback we've received from stakeholders, this AINS will provide the FCC with enough time to thoroughly examine each applicant and to determine whether to grant them a license or not. So again, I want to thank Chairman Guthrie for working with me on this AINS. I'm pleased to join him in this effort. This bill is beneficial not only for our country, but will also help us further our ability to remain a leader in space on the global stage. Failing to implement the solutions in this bill risks having the United States fall behind our counterparts around the world, including China, in producing cutting-edge consumer innovations and fortifying our public safety and national security capabilities.
For all these reasons, this is an important amendment and I urge my colleagues to support it and then the underlying bill. And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Brett Guthrie
Thank you, the gentleman yields back and I'll recognize myself to speak on the amendment. The amendment reflects and the underlying bill reflects months of bipartisan work to thoughtfully update the bill passed on technical, thoughtfully update the bill. We respond to pass on technical assistance we received from the FCC as well as constructive feedback received from stakeholders. Specifically, we eliminate unnecessary hurdles for minor modifications, provide more certainty by extending the terms for certain categories from 15 to 20 years, and clarify that shot clocks only start after the FCC has a complete application and ensure the applications undergoing national security reviews are not prematurely granted. By advancing the SAT Streamlining Act, we can do our part to ensure the United States continues to lead in the space economy.
I want to thank Ranking Member Pallone for his partnership on this legislation, urge all my colleagues to support the amendment and the underlying bill, and I yield back.
Is there further discussion on the amendment? Gentleman from Florida, that's right I went, so gentleman from Florida is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Darren Soto
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In Central Florida last year we had over 100 launches at Cape Canaveral, the district right next to ours. NASA, SpaceX, ULA, Blue Origin, all humming with activity, and many of these are satellite missions to help with everything from GPS to your cell phones to scientific experiments, defense, you name it. And last term we were able to work together with Dr. Dunn on the Launch Communications Act, which streamlined FCC permits for launches, and now we're continuing that process by focusing on satellites themselves with the SAT Streamlining Act, which establishes reasonable and balanced licensing processes for the FCC for satellites and making sure that they can be built and licensed in the United States as we continue to pursue American space leadership. The space economy is going to increase exponentially over the next 10 to 20 years.
We want to make sure that the manufacturing, the launch, the management of it, all these things happen in the USA, and so I'm proud to support this bill and I yield back.
Brett Guthrie
Just a second, just a couple minutes. You said you worked on this with Dr. Dunn, our previous bill before, and I know maybe he's watching today, I hope that he is, and I just want, I know all of us from the committee wish him Godspeed and hope that he can improve and get better and we'd love to see him before end of the, before January comes around, so hopefully he can make it back. I'll yield back to you.
Darren Soto
And I want to reiterate the Chairman's fond and kind words to Dr. Dunn, a long-time partner of mine from Florida for the last 10 years, and we do wish him a quick recovery and look forward to working with him when he gets back.
Brett Guthrie
Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question now occurs on adopting, excuse me, the question occurs on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment shall signify by saying aye.
Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. Are there any further amendments to the bill? Seeing none, the question now occurs on adopting H.R. 8255 as amended.
A roll call has been requested and the clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 4
Mr. Latta. Aye. Mr. Latta votes aye. Mr. Griffith. Aye.
Mr. Griffith votes aye. Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Hudson. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Palmer.
Aye. Mr. Palmer votes aye. Mr. Dunn. Mr. Crenshaw. Mr. Joyce.
Aye. Mr. Joyce votes aye. Mr. Weber. Mr. Allen. Aye.
Mr. Allen votes aye. Mr. Balderson. Aye. Mr. Balderson votes aye. Mr. Fulcher.
Aye. Mr. Fulcher votes aye. Mr. Pfluger. Mrs. Harshbarger. Aye.
Mrs. Harshbarger votes aye. Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Mrs. Cammack. Mr. Obernolte. Mr. James.
Mr. Bentz. Mrs. Houchin. Mr. Fry. Ms. Lee. Mr. Langworthy.
Aye. Mr. Langworthy votes aye. Mr. Kane. Aye. Mr. Kane votes aye.
Mr. Rouzer. Aye. Mr. Rouzer votes aye. Mr. Evans. Mr. Goldman.
Mrs. Fletcher. Mr. Pallone. Aye. Mr. Pallone votes aye. Ms. DeGette.
Aye. Ms. DeGette votes aye. Ms. Schakowsky. Aye. Ms. Schakowsky votes aye.
Ms. Matsui.
Ms. Matsui votes aye.
Mr. Tonko votes aye.
Mr. Ruiz votes aye.
Mrs. Dingell votes aye.
Mr. Veasey.
Mr. Veasey votes aye.
Mr. Soto votes aye.
Ms. Trahan votes aye.
Ms. Fletcher.
Ms. Fletcher votes aye.
Mr. Auchincloss votes aye.
Mr. Menendez votes aye.
Mr. Mullin votes aye.
Mr. Landsman.
Mr. Landsman votes aye.
Ms. McClellan.
Chairman Guthrie.
Chairman Guthrie votes aye.
Mr. Bilirakis votes aye.
Mr. Goldman votes aye.
Mr. Pence votes aye.
Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber votes aye.
Mr. Obernolte. Ms. Schrier.
Ms. Castor is not recorded.
Ms. Castor votes aye.
Ms. Barragán is not recorded.
Ms. Barragán votes aye.
Brett Guthrie
The bill is adopted. The chair calls up H.R. 7294 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 62
Committee print of H.R. 7294, a bill to study the impacts of artificial intelligence on communications networks.
Brett Guthrie
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? The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Robert Menendez
Thank you, Chairman. My district is home to one of the largest concentrations of critical infrastructure in the nation, making secure and reliable communications networks vital. These networks help people reach 911 in an emergency, keep hospitals connected to patients, allow banks and ports to operate, and give first responders the information they need to act quickly when lives are at risk. AI can help providers spot vulnerabilities before they disrupt the services people rely on. But in the wrong hands, AI can also make attacks faster, more sophisticated, and harder to stop.
As these threats grow more advanced, we need the strongest tools available to protect our networks and the communities that depend on them. As we have seen in recent instances, these risks are no longer theoretical. AI is advancing rapidly and is increasingly being used in ways that can threaten the security of our networks. Congress must address this challenge by harnessing AI's potential while ensuring that strong safeguards are in place to protect against its growing risks. That's why I introduced the bipartisan AI for Secure Networks Act along with Congressman Pfluger.
Our bill would promote the responsible use of AI to advance the cybersecurity of America's communications networks while confronting the risk posed by its misuse. I am pleased that this committee is advancing bipartisan solutions to make systems more secure and ensure communities across the country can stay connected when they need it most. Thank you, and I yield back.
Brett Guthrie
Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Seeing none, are there any amendments to the bill? Seeing none, the question now occurs on adopting HR 7294. A roll call has been requested.
Mr. Latta.
Mr. Latta votes aye. Mr. Griffith.
Mr. Weber votes aye. Mr. Allen.
Speaker 4
Mr. Fulcher votes aye. Mr. Pfluger. Mrs. Harshbarger. Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Mrs. Cammack.
Mr. Kane votes aye. Mr. Rouzer.
Mr. Pallone votes aye. Ms. DeGette.
Ms. DeGette votes aye. Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky votes aye. Ms. Matsui.
Ms. Castor votes aye. Mr. Tonko.
Speaker 4
Mr. Mullin votes aye. Mr. Landsman. Mr. Landsman votes aye. Ms. McClellan. Ms. McClellan votes aye.
Chairman Guthrie.
Speaker 176
Chairman Guthrie votes aye. Mrs. Harshbarger. Mrs. Harshbarger is not recorded. Mrs. Harshbarger votes aye. Dr. Joyce.
Mr. Joyce votes aye.
Speaker 56
The clerk will report. Oh, I'm sorry. How's Mr. Bilirakis recorded? I thought you had said you had voted. How's Mr. Bilirakis recorded?
Are you recorded aye? Is Mr. Bilirakis recorded?
Hudson votes aye.
Speaker 178
Mr. Hudson votes aye. Ms. Barragán. Mr. Bilirakis votes aye. Barragán. Ms. Barragán votes aye.
Mr. Soto. Mr. Soto votes aye.
Brett Guthrie
The ayes have it and the bill is adopted. The chair calls up H.R. 6152 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 180
H.R. 6152, a bill to direct the Federal Communications Commission to submit to Congress a report on foreign robocalls.
Brett Guthrie
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? Seeing none, Dr. Joyce is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
John Joyce
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Foreign robocalls are a costly scam that have stolen the hard-earned money of countless American families. With every single call, these scammers evolve and become more successful at committing crimes. These overseas criminals understand how to target the most vulnerable citizens. They target senior citizens.
These scams result in devastating financial loss that no American family should ever have to endure. Lisa Moyer, the long-term living program supervisor at Blair Senior Services, recently shared with my office what protective services staff at her agency are seeing. The staff noticed that there has been an increase in financial exploitation of seniors in recent years, with scams being the number one cause. Robocalls are being used by scammers as a tactic to prey on older adults. These calls are becoming so advanced that it is difficult for the victims to identify the calls as being a scam.
According to Lisa and protective services staff at Blair Senior Services, hearing and cognitive impairments can also make it more challenging for adults when they're faced with these scam calls. H.R. 6152, the Foreign Robocall Elimination Act, is a legislative effort that I am proud to co-sponsor. By creating an interagency task force to combat unlawful robocalls, Congress can begin to address this growing problem in an actionable way. These bad actors cannot be allowed to continue their deceptive practices against our constituents. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Brett Guthrie
Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion of the bill? Seeing none, are there any amendments on the bill?
Seeing none, the question now occurs on adopting H.R. 6152. A roll call has been requested, and the clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Latta.
Mr. Latta votes aye. Mr. Griffith.
Mr. Joyce votes aye. Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber votes aye. Mr. Allen.
Mr. Kiley votes aye. Mr. Rouzer.
Mr. Pallone votes aye. Ms. DeGette.
Ms. DeGette votes aye. Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky votes aye. Ms. Matsui.
Mrs. Dingell votes aye. Mr. Veasey.
Mr. Soto votes aye. Ms. Schrier.
Ms. Schrier votes aye. Ms. Trahan.
Chairman Guthrie votes aye.
Mr. Bilirakis recorded.
Bilirakis votes aye.
Mr. Peters.
Mr. Peters is not recorded.
Peters votes aye.
Mr. Peters votes aye.
Speaker 201
Anyone else? The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there were 37 ayes and zero noes. The ayes have it, the bill is adopted. The chair calls up H.R. 2805 and asks the clerk to report.
H.R. 2805, a bill to direct the assistance...
Speaker 186
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? On the bill, Mr. Peters from California recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Scott Peters
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to say that I'm glad to see my plan for broadband act included in today's markup. The bill was introduced in response to a 2022 study from the Government Accountability Office that identified over 130 different federal broadband programs led by 15 different agencies. This fragmented approach to broadband oversight has sowed confusion, created duplicative patchworks of funding, and prevented effective deployment.
This fragmented approach to broadband oversight has sowed confusion, created duplicative patchworks of funding, and prevented effective deployment. The approach unfortunately hurts areas most that need broadband program funding, especially rural and low-income areas. To ensure that all communities obtain reliable internet access, it's essential that Congress synchronize federal broadband deployment efforts. This is exactly what the Plan for Broadband Act, which I lead with Representative Walberg, would accomplish. The bill directs the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to develop one federal strategy for the management and coordination of national broadband programs.
As the GAO study shows us, interagency coordination is needed to close the digital divide and ensure that federal broadband funds reach the communities that need them. I urge my colleagues to support the bill so that my constituents in San Diego and all Americans can have a reliable and affordable internet connection in our increasingly online world. Thank you to you all and I yield back.
Brett Guthrie
Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Seeing none, are there any amendments? Seeing none, the question now occurs on adopting H.R. 2805. A roll call has been requested and the clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Latta.
Mr. Latta votes aye. Mr. Griffith.
Speaker 102
Mr. Bilirakis votes aye. Mr. Hudson. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Palmer.
Mr. Joyce votes aye. Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber votes aye. Mr. Allen.
Speaker 4
Mrs. Cammack votes aye. Mr. Obernolte. Mr. James. Mr. Bence. Mrs. Houchin.
Mr. Fry. Ms. Lee. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Kane.
Mr. Kane votes aye. Mr. Rouzer.
Ms. Get votes aye. Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky votes aye. Ms. Matsui.
Ms. Matsui votes aye. Ms. Castor.
Mr. Ruiz votes aye. Mr. Peters.
Mr. Soto votes aye. Mr. Schrader.
Mr. Schrader votes aye. Ms. Trahan.
Ms. Trahan votes aye. Ms. Fletcher.
Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mr. Mullin.
Mr. Mullin votes aye. Mr. Landsman.
Mr. Landsman votes aye. Ms. McClellan.
Chairman Guthrie votes aye.
Mr. Bence votes aye.
Mr. Balderson.
Speaker 118
Mr. Landsman votes aye. Ms. McClellan. Ms. McClellan votes aye. Chairman Guthrie. Chairman Guthrie votes aye.
Speaker 56
Anyone else seeking... so we got Mr. Bents. Mr. Balderson. Mr. Balderson votes aye. Everybody here's good. Oh, Ms. Budzinski.
Ms. Budzinski is not recorded. Ms. Budzinski votes aye. The clerk will report.
Brett Guthrie
The ayes have it and the bill is adopted. Okay, the chair calls up HR 4950 and asks the clerk to report.
HR 4950, a bill to direct the Federal... 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? Gentleman from Flor... let me start with the gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes.
John Joyce
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressman Houchin's legislation, the Data Bridge Act, represents an important step forward that completes broadband data mapping that will allow us to get closer than ever before to achieving universal broadband availability. Representing rural Pennsylvania, I understand just how critical mapping data is in the ongoing effort to deliver broadband services to all of America. Rural agricultural communities face unique challenges when it comes to getting connected. Earlier this week, I sat down with the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau President Tommy Nagle, and we discussed this legislation and the impact that it would have to allow that broadband connection to occur.
He gave an example. If farmer's equipment breaks in the field and spews fertilizer, the farmer needs the connection to be able to identify the problem and save as much fertilizer as possible. They need the connection with broadband, they need the cellular connection, agriculture functions on connectivity. In this era of precision agriculture, the best equipment is powered by strong connectivity. President Tommy Nagle shares these concerns, and I look forward to continuing my partnership with him to improve those connections for farmers across Pennsylvania's 13th district.
Cambria County Farm Bureau President Marty Yahner has heard the needs of farmers when it comes to getting connected. He said, and I quote, "Broadband connects farmers to the marketplace. Farmers use the internet to follow the commodity markets, market their products to customers, and meet regulatory requirements. Reliable internet gives ag businesses the tools that they need to make timely decisions and compete in an increasingly connected economy." We need reliable data to drive broadband deployment for our farmers who also need it.
By adding a layer to the FCC's existing national broadband map for agricultural areas, like the ones that I represent, the Data Bridge Act is that strong step forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield.
Brett Guthrie
Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Gentleman from Florida is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Darren Soto
Thank you, Chairman. I'm proud to represent the cattle and citrus countries in Central Florida, the heartland beyond. Ranchers, growers, farmers are working hard to help feed America, but they face a lot of hurdles right now: tariffs, rising diesel and fertilizer costs because of the Iran war, labor shortages, citrus greening, mealybug, even a freeze. Thankfully, Florida hasn't seen the screwworm, but we need to be vigilant on that. And there's a couple things we could do to help them.
One is pass a farm bill, and the other is to help finish the job on rural broadband.
Right now the process has been slow. Only two states have broadband moving right now, but I'm hopeful as this committee continues to do our job, we move this along. And as we have that, we also need a good national broadband map that includes agricultural areas. So I applaud Reps Kelly and Reps Houchin for putting forward this great bill. As they face all these increasing challenges that we've discussed, precision agriculture is one of those things we could help make sure our local farmers, our ranchers, our growers have the tools they need to continue their good work.
And I yield back.
Brett Guthrie
Thank you, the gentleman yields back. Any further discussion? Seeing none, any amendments? Seeing none, the question now occurs on adopting HR 4950. This will be our final bill, so a roll call has been requested and the clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Latta.
Mr. Griffith votes aye. Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Joyce votes aye. Mr. Weber.
Speaker 4
Mr. Fulcher votes aye. Mr. Pfluger. Mrs. Harshbarger. Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Mrs. Cammack.
Ms. Lee. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Kane. Mr. Rouzer.
Mr. Obernolte. Mr. Fry. Mr. James. Mr. Bence. Mrs. Houchin.
Mr. Rouzer votes aye. Mr. Evans. Mr. Goldman.
Mr. Ruiz votes aye. Mr. Peters.
Mrs. Dingell votes aye. Mr. Veasey.
Ms. Barragán votes aye. Mr. Soto.
Mrs. Trahan votes aye. Ms. Fletcher.
Mr. Landsman votes aye. Ms. McClellan.
Chairman Guthrie votes aye.
Mr. Allen votes aye.
Mr. Palmer.
Mr. Pfluger.
Mr. Pfluger votes aye.
Mr. Balderson.
Mr. Kane.
Mr. Kane votes aye.
Mr. Bence.
Mr. Bence votes aye.
Dr. Schrier.
Dr. Schrier votes aye.
Mr. Kaine.
Mr. Kaine votes aye.
Mr. Bentz.
Mr. Bentz votes aye.
Dr. Schrier.
Ms. Schrier votes aye.
Brett Guthrie
The ayes have it and the bill is adopted. Without objection, the staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes to the legislation approved by the committee today. So ordered, and without objection, the committee stands adjourned.