Full Committee Markup of Nine Bills

All right. The committee will come to order. Before we begin, I'd like to take a moment to address our guests in the audience. Thank you for being here. We appreciate everybody being here. We think engaged citizens are welcomed and you are a very valuable part of our process. So appreciate it. But I do want to remind our guests in the audience that the chair is obligated under the rules of the House and the rules of the committee to maintain order and preserve decorum in the committee room. I know that we all have deep feelings on these issues, that we all may not agree on everything, but I ask that we all abide by these rules and be respectful of our audience members, our viewers, and our witnesses. The chair appreciates the audience's cooperation in maintaining order as we have a full discussion of these issues. So the chair will now recognize I'll recognize myself for a opening statement, five minutes. As as people, as a committee, and as a Congress, there are few things that are more essential than our responsibility to protect our children. Today, the harms kids face online are complex, they are immense, and they're constantly changing. In August of 2025, the ranking member and I sat down and made a commitment to try to deliver a bipartisan package to empower parents and to protect children and teens online. We both recognize the gravity of the issue. We both recognize that parents across this country are asking for action. Since that time, the bipartisan committee staff has spent more than 40 hours directly negotiating these bills and countless more working with members on this committee, stakeholders, and each other to build consensus. Dozens of hours of negotiation, drafts, redlines, counterproposals, serious engagement, and good faith efforts. And I'm disappointed that despite all that work, we're ultimately unable to reach a bipartisan agreement. This committee has a long history of working across the aisle on issues affecting children and families in the past. We have shown that when the stakes are high enough, we can put politics aside and work together. And that is why it is unfortunate the slate of bills today before us is not bipartisan. But at the end of the day, members of Congress, our responsibility is to our constituents, especially our children. Across the country, children are being targeted, groomed, harassed, and exploited online. Algorithms amplify addictive, harmful content. Predators exploit anonymity, and parents are left trying to navigate a digital world that evolves faster than the safeguards they have at their disposal. Every month we delay, more families experience the kind of devastation that no parent should ever endure. We worked hard to try to make these bills bipartisan. We meant it when we once said we wanted to get there, but the absence of a of a bipartisan consensus cannot be an excuse for inaction. We hoped to do this with our Democrat colleagues, but if we cannot do it together, we still must move forward and the time is now. We're taking the meaningful steps forward to empower parents and protect children and teens online. We owe it to parents. We owe it to communities and most importantly, we owe it to the kids who are counting on us to get this right. Today, we will also mark up five bills from the Energy Subcommittee, which will help ensure the physical and cybersecurity of one of America's greatest forms of infrastructure, our electric grid. As more and more of our lives become digital, the physical and cybersecurity threats to our grid grow in frequency and impact, particularly from adverse nation states. These bipartisan cybersecurity bills will help combat those threats by strengthening DOE's leadership when it comes to securing the energy sector, providing targeted funding and technical assistance to rural and municipal utilities, and authorizing public-private partnerships on grid security to enhance information sharing. I appreciate the willingness of the ranking member Pallone and Castor and ranking member Castor to work with us on these important bills and look forward to moving them forward together. Thank you, and I now yield to the ranking member of the full committee, my good friend, Mr. Pallone, the gentleman from New Jersey. Recognized for five minutes for your opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Everyone in this room shares the important goal of protect our nation's kids as they navigate the online world. And over the past several months, I have engaged in aggressive bipartisan talks with Chairman Guthrie and his staff to address the risks children and teens face as they live increasingly digital-centered lives. And I'm disappointed that we were not able to come to bipartisan agreement on the bills before us today. Unfortunately, committee Republicans have chosen to move forward with a set of partisan bills that simply do not meet the mark for kids' safety and if they become law, would leave kids and their parents worse off than they are today in my opinion. And that's right, I really believe that these bills would leave our kids less safe online than they are today. I believe that Republicans are handing Big Tech a giant gift by walking away from the stronger preemption standards that were previously included in these bills. The new preemption standards are inadequate to allow states to pass stronger laws to do more to protect kids. And this is really important, especially as we consider how quickly technology can evolve with artificial intelligence. Even worse, the preemption provisions could harm existing efforts to protect kids by holding companies like Meta and Roblox accountable in the courts. Just last month, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified in a landmark trial about social media addiction and harm. And we need to preserve these avenues for justice for kids and parents who have suffered unspeakable harms, including many of the parents in the room with us today. The Republican bills could prevent these avenues from even being open, leaving Meta and other Big Tech companies unaccountable for the harms that they inflict on our kids. Republicans have also included a giant loophole for Big Tech with their knowledge standard. This standard allows tech companies and companies that collect kids' data to continue to claim that they lacked actual knowledge or willfully disregarded knowledge that kids are using on their platforms. Republicans are letting Big Tech off the hook by letting them say they don't know they have kids on their platforms. But nobody really believes that. But Republicans want to let Big Tech get away with ridiculous claims. With an impossible to meet knowledge standard, enforcement becomes extremely difficult. So these bills also threaten kids in unsupportive or even abusive households where there can be real-world harms from allowing parents complete access and control over their teens' online existence. These Republican bills let Big Tech off the hook, they stop progress to protect kids, and they make vulnerable kids less safe. And that's why I can't support them today. Finally, I am disappointed that the slate of bills we are considering today does not include my Don't Sell Kids' Data Act, a straightforward bill that would have banned data brokers from profiting off of kids' data. And while I cannot support these bills today, I hope we can continue to work as the chairman has suggested to improve all of the bills so that they actually protect kids. And I'm committed to this issue as I've always been, but we have to get it right. Our kids depend on it. We'll also be marking up five bipartisan energy cybersecurity bills on the agenda today. We're facing unprecedented challenges to the reliability of our power grid. The bills we're marking up help us address some of the cybersecurity concerns that we're currently facing. And while there's still more work to be done, I'm encouraged to see bipartisan interest in moving these policies forward. Three of the bills amend or reauthorize important programs that were established in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. We're also marking up legislation that ensures the Department of Energy has the authorities it needs to enhance energy security. The Department of Energy and Secretary Wright have a lot to prove to us when it comes to protecting our energy security. The Trump administration has spent its efforts canceling much-needed investments in our power grid even as our need for more reliable energy only grows. And this cannot continue. One of the programs we're reauthorizing today had millions in funding for rural electric cooperatives and municipal utilities that were held up for countless months due to senseless delays at Trump's Department of Energy. If we want the programs we're reauthorizing today to succeed, we have to ensure that this doesn't happen again. And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

The gentleman yields back and the chair will remind members that pursuant to the committee rules, all members' opening statements will be made part of the record. Are there further opening statements? Gentleman from Ohio is recognized for three minutes for an opening statement.

Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I'm pleased that today's markup has the five bipartisan energy security bills to address cyber and physical threats to our nation's energy infrastructure. Throughout the 119th Congress, the Energy Subcommittee has spent considerable time examining the evolving threat landscape facing our energy system. American families and businesses rely on secure, reliable, and affordable energy supplies in their everyday lives. The legislation before us today will protect our nation's critical infrastructure by ensuring government and private sector partners are equipped with the resources and authorities needed to identify, assess, and address attacks on our energy infrastructure. The interconnected nature of our energy systems requires constant intelligence sharing, clear visibility into threat landscapes, and sufficient resources to fill gaps in security protections, particularly for rural and small utility service territories. Our bipartisan legislation seeks to do just that. H.R. 7272, the Pipeline Cybersecurity Preparedness Act, and H.R. 7258, the Energy Emergency Leadership Act, rightly enhance the Department of Energy's existing role in physical and cyber threat protection as the sector risk management agency for the energy industry. In addition, H.R. 7305, the Energy Threat Analysis Center Act, and H.R. 7266, the Rural and Municipal Utility Cybersecurity Act, aid information sharing efforts for threat detection and equips small and rural operators with the necessary resources to protect their systems. H.R. 7257, the Secure Grid Act, which I sponsor with the gentlelady from California's 7th Congressional District, will modernize state energy security plans to take a holistic view of potential threats facing states. Altogether, the bipartisan legislation before us builds upon the important work being done across the country and will ensure a more secure and resilient system as we enter into an era of skyrocketing energy demands. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank our subcommittee staffs for all their hard work on getting these bills to us today. Urge my colleagues to support these important bills. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Gentleman yields back and I'll just go in order. So the gentlelady from New York, you're recognized for an opening statement for three minutes.

Good morning and thank you, Chairman Guthrie and Ranking Member Pallone. I'll get right to it. This committee sounds like a broken record. Month after month and year after year, Republicans have used this committee as a means to give more handouts to tech oligarchs under the guise of keeping kids safe online. Today's no different as we prepare to discuss the same half-baked bills. In our subcommittee markup in December, we agreed that we all wanted to see changes to these bills. Apparently, three months was not enough time to reach any sort of consensus, let alone common sense. Republicans have gone as far as to create a partisan Frankenstein package made of their bad ideas, falsely labeled as kids' internet safety. Some of the bills before this committee today are rife with contradictions, vague enforcement mechanisms, and directly undermine state authority. As I've said many times in this room, without a comprehensive federal standard, existing state laws are the only legislation keeping kids safe online right now. These bills will make way for bad actors to data mine or in other words, sell, license, rent, trade, transfer, release, disclose, or provide access to personal data. Let me spell it out for you. When a data miner gets the personal information of a child or teen, they profit on them for life. The best solution to protect kids online is a federal data privacy standard that we can build off and include additional protection for children and teens. Until my colleagues on the other side of the aisle decide to take this seriously and stop lining the pockets of Big Tech and data miners, no one will actually be safe online. Let's go back to the drawing board, work in a bipartisan manner to create clear preemption definitions and create a package that actually keeps children safe. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida for three minutes for his opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to thank the chairman for working with me and stakeholders on all these child protection bills since the subcommittee markup. The KIDS Act is the most comprehensive kids online safety package this committee has ever advanced. This is the culmination of years of hearings, evidence gathering, heartfelt testimony, and the social media questioning this committee led under several chairs in the past. We heard stories of kids engaging in drug sales and dying of overdoses with the help of apps that enabled disappearing messages. The KIDS Act does that. And I want to thank the parents as well for their input. There's no question. We heard stories of kids being groomed by strangers through gaming apps and consoles. The KIDS Act addresses that, ladies and gentlemen. We heard stories of chatbots encouraging and facilitating suicides in kids. The KIDS Act, sponsored by the chairman, addresses that. We've come a long way, ladies and gentlemen. We've worked together in a bipartisan fashion. Specifically, I want to talk about my bill, the Kids Online Safety Act, which is now in Title II of the KIDS Act. This bill creates significant safeguards for minors that limit known threats. This includes limitations on the ability of strangers to engage with minors online. It limits design features that cause compulsive use and addiction to social media platforms. It restricts geolocation of minors that are being used by groomers to meet and abuse their victims, as well as facilitate narcotic drug sales. Most importantly, KOSA turns off algorithms by default for our kids. So very important. Again, the input from the parents really made the difference. We all see it on our own devices. Every one of us are constantly fed recommended videos based on individual history on platform or across platforms. Now imagine you are a teen child that enjoys UFC videos, or a teen, a boy or a girl, or a teen girl or boy who watches a video on healthy eating. Of course, there's nothing wrong with this. But we've all heard the stories. In a matter of days, kids can be sucked into an algorithm that twists these innocent views into promoting violence or drug use or self-harm or eating disorders. KOSA puts an end to this spiral. We have a great package here, ladies and gentlemen, that is going to go a long way to protecting kids and reducing the online harms we have all seen. So again, I thank the chairman for creating this package of bills, which combined will mitigate many of the harms we have all seen in our districts. I'm proud of the work we've done, and it's long past time to move these bills to the floor. I appreciate it. Thank you so much.

Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, for three minutes for opening statement.

Well, I want to thank the parents and families that are here today. And the message that I have heard is that this legislation is not what we have been looking for. We want something better, stronger, something that is really relevant to the children that have been lost. We can do better. And so I think many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle believe that we can and better do will, do better. We need to work with the families, hear their voices, hear what happened, and we need to stop it. And we don't have to slim down. We can get something that is going to be strong enough to make sure that these people who are here today thinking about their children, children that did not make it, and asking us to do better, to be stronger, to be smarter. I think we can do this. I know that we can do this. We've had conversations about it, and I am looking forward to the real bill that needs to make sure that it accounts for the people who have the, have had the worst thing in life happen to them, to lose their precious children. We can do better. And I yield back.

The gentlelady yields back. Does any member of the Republican side seeking recognition for opening statement? The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, for three minutes for opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For years, the Energy and Commerce Committee has examined the profound harms of the social media platforms inflict on children and the malign design choices that Big Tech companies use to maximize engagement and profit at kids' expense. Through hearings, investigations, whistleblower testimony, and the voices of families across this country, this committee has learned that these platforms are engineered to capture children's attention, harvest their data, and keep them online with disregard to the consequences of their mental health and safety. That is why it is so troubling that the Republican kids online safety and privacy bills before us today would actually weaken protections for children. These bills would prevent states from acting as technology evolves, blocking them from responding to new and emerging threats. And they would let social media companies off the hook by allowing them to claim they don't know that children are on their platforms, even though these companies design their products to attract young users and profit from their presence. Instead of raising standards for children's safety, these bills would lower them. Instead of empowering states to protect kids, they would tie the states' hands. And instead of holding Big Tech accountable, they would shield companies and corporations from responsibility. We know this. In 2021, Frances Haugen came before Congress and she testified that Meta built a business model that prioritizes profit over the safety of its users. Her testimony echoed the tactics of the tobacco industry decades ago: deny the harm, obscure the evidence, and protect the business model at all costs. Well, we've learned since then, Surgeon General reports, John Haidt's bestselling book, we know this. So why are Republicans catering to the Big Tech companies instead of truly getting back to the bipartisan strong versions of kids online safety and privacy bills that we hammered out together in the last Congress? I think you only have to look at what this Congress has done. The Big Tech companies had a front-row seat at the inauguration. They were able to pass an AI moratorium. This is not the time to turn your back on kids. And people across America are aware of this. We're not going to stand for weaker bills that put our kids' safety and privacy at risk. And I want to thank the parents who are here. You have been our North Star in working for, as Ms. Schakowsky said, so much better. You deserve so much better, and we're going to fight for you every step of the way. I yield back my time.

Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. And the chair will recognize the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Harshbarger, for three minutes for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to express my gratitude to Chair Guthrie for his leadership. I've heard from countless parents who've been fighting to protect their children and teens from harm online. The KIDS Act will save lives. You know, I'm a mother, but not only am I a mother, I'm a grandmother with children who are the age who have access to these online evils. So what this committee's doing today, we're fighting for what's right. We need to pass this bill to empower parents and protect American families. I want to highlight Title I of the KIDS Act. This provision includes language from the SCREEN Act, which my colleague and very good friend Mary Miller introduced earlier this Congress and which I'm proud to help lead. Point blank, kids should not be looking at pornography. This is just common sense, people. If you want to operate an adult website, you need to make sure minors are not using it. I also want to add that it is constitutional, too. There's some groups out there who suggest it's unconstitutional. Personally, I don't believe this is their real concern. We've been hearing from a lot of folks who profit off doing harm to kids or have questionable ideological priorities. But for those who are worried, you should not be. Last summer, the Supreme Court ruled on this very issue. In Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Texas upholding the constitutionality of the state law requiring age verification for adult websites. This bill uses the same language and thresholds. Twenty-four other states have similar laws in place. So I strongly encourage all my colleagues to support this provision and the KIDS Act overall, because this cannot wait. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

The gentlelady yields back. And the chair will recognize the gentlelady from Michigan for three minutes for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Privacy is a fundamental right. And when it comes to our kids, that responsibility is even greater. And I just have to say I'm really deeply disappointed that we're here again today. We're considering a partisan package that falls short of what our families across this country are demanding and what our children need. I'm looking at the parents and their pictures of their children, and I've gotten to know some of them, and I know other families with children that have committed suicide or done other awful things because they had, they were, I'm going to start to cry. We've got to do something. We keep talking and talking and talking about protecting kids online. We've held hearings and markups and we've introduced bills, and yet time and time again, these efforts collapse into partisan exercises that lead nowhere. And meanwhile, our children are exposed to harmful content, their data is harvested, and they're left without meaningful protections. We need, and we've been trying to work on bipartisan solutions. But instead of building consensus, my colleagues, I love you, but we're jamming through a package that prioritizes the industry over accountability, that prioritizes industry over our kids. I know how you feel. I lost somebody to suicide, and no one can understand until you've been where you all are. And that's just not how this committee has historically operated, and it's not how we should be operating. This, I'm concerned that this package includes sweeping preemption. As technology evolves and new harms emerge, we must continue to step up to protect children. We've got to set a strong federal floor. What makes me even more frustrated is that common sense bipartisan bills, like my No Fentanyl on Social Media Act, which directs federal agencies to examine how traffickers target minors online and develop concrete recommendations to protect kids, are being wrapped into a broader partisan package that undermines meaningful privacy protections. Unfortunately, and I hate to say this because I love my friends, but this package is privacy in name only, and it fails to create real enforceable standards that truly put children and families first. We can't continue to cede our leadership on privacy. We can't keep passing partisan measures while the digital world grows more and more complex for our kids. The American people expect us to work together and get this right. We all need to stand up for our families and for our young people. I hate, I'm going to have to vote against this package because it's not strong enough, but I hope we can all work together to actually deliver strong privacy protections our children deserve.

The gentlelady yields back. Is there further opening statements on the Republican side? Any on the Democrat side? Gentlelady from New York is recognized for three minutes for your opening statement.

Thank you. I'd like to concur with some of the statements that have been issued today. And I want to, of course, just put my heart out to all of the families of our victims and survivors that are here in the audience today. This bill, unfortunately, is a lot of some of the most cynical ways that Washington works, which is that we center or at the top of this bill, we will talk about kids and we'll say that things are in, under the guise of the safety of children. But then when you actually open the hood and look at what's under there, it's being used as a smokescreen for everything that big tech lobbyists want. And what big tech lobbyists want is a national surveillance program where they can harvest the private and personal data of every American with zero actual protections for people and their privacy and victims of some of the most heinous crimes that we've seen in America. And we don't have to just talk about this as though this is a theoretical issue. Just a couple of months ago, Discord, a platform where a lot of kids have been targeted and put in danger, mind you, tried to roll out this idea of a data verification or an age verification technique. But what they did, but they did it in this way that was also very emblematic of what we're against here today. They contracted out to a third party private company to do facial scanning of not just kids, but also adults. And then, and mind you, Discord has over 200 million users every month. They decided to launch a teen default setting where they will lock you into a quote unquote, what they call, a teen appropriate experience, which means you can't access certain content. Which mind you, if you are an adult that does not opt in, you then get cordoned off into the teen experience. Explain to me how that has anything to do with children's safety. And then, if the only way to get out of that censored version is by scanning your face. But what's more shocking is that Discord made the decision to move forward with this after they had been hacked and at least 70,000 users had their data stolen. So I don't see even on the other side of this, kids were not protected, but a lot of people's privacy was violated. And I want to once again express my heartfelt just condolences to all of the advocates here. And I do believe that we can both protect American safety and protect kids. This package, unfortunately, does not do that, and we want to get to a place where we, of course, protect victims and ensure the privacy of every American is honored as well. Thank you, and I yield back.

Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. Any member of the Republican side? Seeing none. Mr. Auchincloss, you're recognized for three minutes for an opening statement.

Thank you, Chairman. A little bit more than a year ago, the president held a Meta inauguration where Mr. Zuckerberg was front and center, demonstrating to Americans exactly where this president's priorities were going to lie. Since then, Meta and others have helped renovate the East Wing of the White House and build data centers in Louisiana. And now they're getting their reward, which is a Meta markup. And that's exactly what today is. Because what this bill does, to double down on what the congresswoman from New York just said, is this markup is a vehicle for a false flag operation by Meta, where they put at the front of these bills all these nice sounding ideas, and then they tuck in two things, an actual knowledge standard and preemption that nullifies everything that came before it. This is a blank check to big tech, and Democrats are going to stand against it. The reason Meta wants this so badly is because Mr. Zuckerberg doesn't like what's happening right now. He's actually having to answer to a jury of his peers about the treatment of young people online. And this finding some very disturbing things. A third of all 10 to 12 year olds in America are using Instagram, for example, despite the fact that Meta claims that that should be impossible. They're finding out that their chatbots are allowed to hold sensual conversations with young people. We're finding out that Meta suppressed research on child safety. We're finding out that internally and externally they downplayed the risks to child safety, despite knowing internally that their young users were suffering online. Mr. Zuckerberg wants it to stop. And so he comes to congressional Republicans and they make it stop for him. And the opportunity cost there is that the litigation that can bring justice for these parents, for these children, will be halted in its tracks. In my own district in Massachusetts, the town of Brookline has joined a class action suit that seeks to hold Meta and others accountable for treating our children like products whose attention spans can be monetized, whose sense of self and society can be eroded. This lawsuit would never have been possible had this law that we are marking up today been in effect. And we must prevent this false flag operation from succeeding. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Is there further opening statements on the Republican side? Seeing none. Any on the Democrat side? Seeing none. Before we pull up the first bill, I'd like to take a point of personal privilege to recognize a valuable member of our team who is leaving us, Ms. Konomadi. Today is the last committee activity for our deputy staff director, Sophie Konomadi. I finally got saying your married name correctly because I've known you for so long, I've called you by your maiden name for so long. So Sophie joined my office in 2017 as my healthcare advisor, became my legislative director in 2019, and then later became my chief of staff. She has led our office and was instrumental in my becoming chairman of this committee. And last year Sophie came over as our deputy staff director and has been an integral part of our team. For all of her professional talents, which there are many, above all she is a truly wonderful person. And I've gotten to see her get married to her husband Peter, become a mom with the birth of her son Henry Beau, and I'm excited for her as she becomes, welcomes a baby girl this summer. And while I am so sad to lose her, I'm proud of all she has accomplished and I'm excited for her and her family as they begin this next adventure. And I'll ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Sophie for her service to this committee and this country. [Applause.] Appreciate it very much. You're the best. So now we'll get back to legislative business. The chair calls up H.R. 7577 and asks the clerk to report.

H.R. 7757, a bill to protect children and teens online, empower parents, and strengthen families and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the...

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 I will recognize myself for five minutes to speak on the bill. As we sit here today, childhood is being reshaped in real time by the digital world, and often in ways detrimental to American families. And parents feel it. We see you here. Kids are living it, and Congress has a responsibility to act. That is exactly what the Kids Internet Digital Safety Act does. The KIDS Act is the most serious, comprehensive piece of legislation to address online safety to date. There is no one size fits all fix that can help American families navigate the challenges they face in today's digital childhood. No single policy that can empower parents or fully remove every threat from the internet. That is precisely why this bill takes a wide ranging approach. This bill brings together a dozen impactful proposals into one unified package. These measures are powerful on their own, but exponentially stronger together. This is the broadest online safety proposal for children and teens ever considered by Congress. The KIDS Act, contrary to what you've heard, sets safety data as the default. Platforms must maximize protection for children and teens, including safeguards against obscene and restricted products, unsafe communication, and design features that result in compulsive usage. It empowers parents. It requires platforms to provide easy to use tools and controls through a centralized interface, making these tools accessible, intuitive, and not yet another burden on already stressed parents. It protects privacy and security. It bans targeted advertising and market research on children and teens by requiring the strongest privacy settings by default and establishing strict privacy and security standards for personal information. It does hold big tech accountable. The bill mandates annual third party audits, reporting mechanisms, and robust enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission and states attorneys general, resulting in the strongest enforcement regime proposed by Congress in any online safety legislation. I want to thank to all the members, both on and off this committee, for your contributions, dedication, and commitment to putting forward the strongest approach to protecting kids online that Congress has ever seen. The KIDS Act reflects all of our work and we should be proud of it. This bill should be bipartisan. This bill includes a dozen separate bills, nearly all of which are bipartisan. During negotiations, we accepted dozens of edits from the minority, and those edits are reflected in the bill before us. Protecting kids and empowering parents is not a partisan issue, and this bill largely reflects the universe of policies we had a bipartisan agreement on. Urge all 54 of us in this room to support this bill. This isn't a moment for politics. It's a moment to govern and children across our nation deserve it. I yield back. Does anyone seek to recognize on the bill? The gentlelady from Florida is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Members, I'd like to shine the light on one of the most consequential ways that House Republicans have bowed to the big tech companies and social media companies. And that's the elimination of the duty of care in the design of their products. There is no duty of care in this bill. A duty of care is a simple idea, but it carries enormous weight when we're talking about children's safety online. At its core, it's the basic expectation that companies should not design products in ways that put people, especially children, at risk, at unnecessary and foreseeable risk. We already apply this expectation to toys, to playgrounds, to cars, and so many other products that children use every day. A duty of care simply brings the same common sense standard into the digital world. In plain language, a duty of care means that if a company knows or should know that its product could harm people, it must take reasonable steps to prevent that harm. It doesn't demand perfection. It doesn't stifle innovation. It simply says, if you build a system that millions of children use, you must think about their safety when you design it. And that matters because social media platforms are not passive tools. They are engineered intentionally. They are built around algorithms, engagement loops, and data collection systems that shape what children see, how long they stay online, and who can reach them. These design choices are powerful, and they can create predictable risks. Features like infinite scroll, autoplay, and algorithmic recommendations keep kids online far longer than is healthy. And children cannot fully understand or manage these risks. They don't have the developmental capacity to navigate complex data practices, targeted content, or manipulative design. Our existing laws are not built for algorithmic systems. Traditional consumer protection frameworks don't address the way digital platforms collect data or shape behavior. A duty of care fills that gap. It requires companies to consider the real-world impact of their systems on young users and to take reasonable steps to reduce foreseeable harm in the way they're designed. And for lawmakers, a duty of care provides a clear and workable standard. It defines what reasonable precautions look like in the digital world. It creates accountability when companies ignore known risks. It encourages platforms to assess harms before launching new features. And it gives states and regulators a benchmark for enforcement while helping courts evaluate whether a company has acted responsibly. It simply establishes a baseline obligation. If a platform knows that a system can harm children, it must act to reduce that harm. And in practice, a duty of care can lead to meaningful improvements. It can push companies to reduce exposure to harmful designs, to limit contact between minors and unknown adults, to avoid addictive features targeted at children, to strengthen privacy protections, and to respond more quickly when harmful patterns emerge. These are the kind of protections families often assume already exist. But they do not. A duty of care helps ensure that when children go online, the companies that built those platforms have taken reasonable steps to keep them safe. It aligns the digital world with the expectations we already have in other parts of children's lives, that the adults in charge take responsibility for preventing foreseeable harm. I so regret that you have weakened the standard and bowed to the big tech companies at the expense of our children. And this was one of the most consequential ways that you did that. I yield back my time.

Gentlelady yields back. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Indiana for five minutes. Gentlelady yields back. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Indiana for five minutes to speak on the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Gentlelady is recognized.

Thank you, Chairman Guthrie, for bringing the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act before this committee markup today. I also want to sincerely thank subcommittee Chairman Bilirakis and your staff for investing in getting this legislation to the point it is today. I want to thank the witnesses, parents, advocates who've shared their stories with me and the expertise they've provided throughout this process. I know that there are concerns that the bill today before us is not perfect. But I do want to note that this is a culmination of a lot of work by this committee to bring meaningful, durable protections to American children online, and our efforts are genuine. To say otherwise is offensive to those of us who have been working on this issue, me personally, for at least the last three years. And I want to see us get something done. I applaud my colleagues on the left. I share their perspective on preemption. But I also am very concerned that their focus stops at age 13 when, if you've read Jonathan Haidt's Anxious Generation, you know that he pushes for a standard of a prohibition for social media under the age of 16. This package will address a wide range of harms: addiction by design features, exposure to dangerous content, exploitation, lack of parental tools, unsafe AI chatbot interactions, and inadequate data privacy. It does create real obligations for platforms, not just voluntary commitments, and it enforces those obligations through the FTC and states' attorneys general. This bill also includes several of my own legislative priorities that I do want to highlight, including the SAFEBOTS Act. We're in the middle of a chatbot revolution. Children are on the front lines. Kids today aren't just scrolling feeds, they're forming emotional bonds with AI companions that simulate empathy, mimic authority figures, and are available at any hour. And in too many cases, those kids don't even know they're talking to software. We saw a tragic illustration of this when a 14-year-old lost his life after months of conversations with a chatbot that validated his most troubling thoughts rather than routing him to real help. That can't be the norm. The SAFEBOTS Act creates common sense baseline guardrails. It prohibits AI from impersonating licensed professionals. It requires age-appropriate disclosure so minors always know they're talking to an AI, not a human. It mandates that platforms provide a crisis hotline when a minor raises self-harm or suicide. It requires reasonable take-a-break prompts after extended interactions and directs the NIH to study long-term mental health effects of chatbots on minors. This bill also includes the AWARE Act, which takes a foundational step that we should have taken years ago, equipping parents, educators, and children with clear, accessible information about the risks of AI chatbots and dangerous bots. Parents need to understand that when their child pours their heart out to a chatbot, that data may be harvested to train the next generation of AI models. They need to know how to identify a bot, how to recognize a manipulative or unsafe bot, and where to turn if something goes wrong. The AWARE Act directs the FTC, in consultation with relevant agencies, to produce those resources. It's not another government report. It's actionable guidance targeted to different age groups delivered in a format that actually reaches families. And I go back again to my mission of having at least an age 16 standard for access to these platforms. Anything less than that creates tremendous loopholes that the tech companies will exploit. These provisions and the broader Kids Act package represent the kind of comprehensive and durable federal framework that families are hoping for. I know it's not perfect, but the research is clear, the harm is documented, and the technology is not going to slow down. I encourage my colleagues to support the package as we continue to work on this. And Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership and I yield back.

Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back. Are there any other members wishing to be recognized on the bill? For what purpose does the gentleman from California seek recognition?

I move to strike the last word.

Gentleman's recognized for five minutes to strike the last word.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the parents that are here holding up photos of your sons and daughters. I can see the pain. I see you and I see your pain. And I want to thank you for being here. I want to be direct. This bill in its current House form raises serious concerns that cannot be ignored. Two issues stand out above all others: one, the lack of a duty of care, and two, the broad preemption of state law. The absence of a duty of care means that platforms are not required to take proactive steps to protect children. Let that sink in for a second. So there are, you know, there's some good perhaps changes that they will do, but they're not required. Instead, they can rely on self-regulated, quote-unquote, reasonable policies as a standard that has repeatedly failed to prevent harm. And who sets that standard? Themselves. Oh, this is reasonable, they say, and they've been saying this. And they're not held accountable because of that. Without a clear legal obligation, our children remain vulnerable to exploitative practices, manipulative design features, and online harms that are well documented. Equally concerning is the bill's broad preemption of state law. For example, in my state, states like California have already enacted strong protections for children online, including the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, which establishes robust privacy and safety standards for minors using digital services. This House bill would effectively nullify those protections, stripping states of the authority to maintain or expand safeguards that are already in place. So it will make kids less safe in those states. In other words, this bill in those states will make kids more vulnerable, will hurt kids, will take away protections. What the hell are we doing here? So Congress should set a federal floor for child safety, not erase state laws that are actively protecting kids today. And you know, they're going to say, no, it doesn't preempt state law. Well, this bill says that the only duty platforms have is to write their own rules and policies. And as long as they have their own rule, anything that holds them to a different standard is, quote-unquote, in conflict with House KOSA. Okay? State laws and state cases hold tech accountable under more protective standards than anything tech will write for themselves, thus the conflict. It also says that actual knowledge is required both for regulation and enforcement. So tech platforms can't be held accountable unless they have actual knowledge or willfully disregard that a child is on their platforms. They're going to say we willfully did not want to do these harms. We're going to take their word for it. So state laws say that tech platforms can be held accountable if they reasonably should have known that a child was on their platforms. That's not going to be in effect anymore because of this bill. I also, Mr. Chairman, want to ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a letter opposing this bill signed by 161 parents whose children have died and 283 parents whose children have suffered severe psychological harm linked to social media, all of whom oppose this legislation. And by the parents nodding their head yes, I'm assuming they're opposing this legislation here. Their voices reflect the real-world consequences of online harms and underscore the urgent need for stronger protections for children. I urge my colleagues to recognize that we cannot prioritize industry convenience over child safety. A stronger duty of care and careful attention to state preemption are essential to ensure this legislation truly protects children, unless all you're doing is introducing a Trojan horse, something that may look like a gift but in fact is dangerous. Every child deserves robust protections online, no matter where they live or their family's circumstances. Our responsibility is to ensure they have them. Thank you to the parents that are here, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back and the chair recognizes Mr. Evans from Colorado for five minutes to speak on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move to strike the last word.

Gentleman's recognized to speak on the bill.

I am proud to speak in support of this historic package, the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act, or KIDS Act. The legislation will deliver the protection that America's children need and empower parents to be sure their kids are being safe online. And I want to thank the Chairman for his leadership on this issue and for including my bipartisan legislation, the No Fentanyl on Social Media Act, in the bill. During subcommittee consideration of the No Fentanyl on Social Media Act last year, I mentioned my background as a police officer in the Denver metro area and the tragic toll that I saw drugs like fentanyl take on the communities I worked in then and the communities I represent now. The proliferation of this drug over social media sites means that we have seen unacceptably high rates of drug overdose deaths among kids. Colorado logged the second highest youth overdose rate in the nation just two years ago with 75 percent of those overdoses being associated with fentanyl. Doing everything that we can in Congress to combat the scourge of this drug is a deeply personal mission for me and I'll remind my colleagues that every 15 days under the previous administration we lost the same number of Americans to drug overdoses as we lost in the entirety of the September 11 terrorist attacks. I'm a veteran of the Global War on Terror. I deployed overseas. That statistic speaks volumes and that's why I'm grateful to see why my legislative proposal, which assesses the full scope of this challenge and presents a comprehensive set of solutions is going to move forward in this committee. I also want to take a moment to highlight the historic nature of this legislation and the other bills that we're considering today and speak to the importance of congressional action in kids online safety. This committee is standing up to big tech companies in a way that's going to be able to survive First Amendment challenges and it's going to put American children first by requiring them to implement common sense default standards and empower parents with the oversight tools they need to protect their families. I'm a cop, spent over 10 years. I've personally put criminals behind bars who have exploited kids online. I'm a father of two boys, teenagers. I know that today's current internet landscape is a lawless environment that often puts kids in harm's way right under families' noses. I've personally met and worked with and responded to victims who would have benefited from reforms like are included in today's proposal from age verification to parental monitoring tools. These aren't radical proposals. They're not even partisan proposals. The concept that you should verify a user's age before allowing them to download explicit apps is not controversial. The concept that chatbots should inform minors that they're chatbots, that they're AI and that they should not encourage suicide is not controversial. The concept that big tech companies should give parents the tools that they need to intervene if their child is exposed to harmful materials online, that's not controversial. These are literally 80-20 issues. The American people are tired of inaction. We have to deliver common sense legislation that will survive all of the court challenges that will inevitably come and make sure that we give something durable that's going to protect kids. America's youth are at a crossroads. Nearly half of teenagers concede that social media as it exists today harms people their age. 55 percent of parents are either extremely or very worried about teen mental health. Nine out of 10 parents are concerned about their kids' own safety online. I've seen this. I've personally responded to countless situations of kids, youth being a danger to themselves because of social media and unfortunately I've had to respond when kids took their own lives because of the pressures or the interactions that they experienced on social media. So to my colleagues across the aisle who are considering voting against these bills today, don't let partisan divides come between our shared goal of protecting our nation's kids. Join us in taking decisive action to make a meaningful, durable, lasting impact on future generations of Americans by putting our kids' well-being first. Chairman Guthrie, I want to thank you for your leadership again in this space. I implore all my colleagues today to join together in protecting kids and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back and the chair recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. DeGette for five minutes for speak on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in your opening statement on these bills, you said this is not a moment for politics. And I agree. But I've been in Congress for a long time now and I find that what happens is frequently, particularly during an election year like this year is, politicians will claim that legislation stands for things that it just doesn't do. I call it, I have a name for it. It's called fig leaf legislation. What we say is we say we have a terrible scourge in our country of online online abuse of kids. And we see the result of it sitting right here today and I want to thank all of these parents, I want to add my thanks to everybody sitting here today for the sacrifices you and your families have made. I also want to say every family sitting in this room wants Congress to work together in a bipartisan way to solve this problem. Not to pass a fig leaf bill where we can all say oh it's a terrible problem and and our kids deserve more and we're going to pass a bill that benefits big data, that benefits these countries and that actually does nothing to help solve more deaths. I've been as I said I've been here long time and for a long time I've seen this committee work on bipartisan legislation to solve problems like this and we can do it. More than 10 years ago, I was actually the chair of the Data Privacy Caucus with the former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee Joe Barton, a Republican from Texas. And we issued a joint statement to mark the eighth anniversary Data Privacy Day and we said 11 years ago, quote, "We live in a digital age of smartphones, tablets and social media. It is vital that consumers are informed about their rights to privacy online. It's also vital that businesses are held accountable for keeping consumers' information safe. Digital innovation and preserving personal privacy can and should go hand in hand." I think back just a couple years ago to September 2024 when the committee produced bipartisan bills that were focused on the well-being of our kids and the Senate passed their version 91 to three. But 24 hours before our markup, the bill was mysteriously changed to restrict a company's duty of care to reasonably prevent and mitigate harms to minors. Now look, two of my wonderful colleagues have already explained in depth why this matters. Our leader Kathy Castor has explained why duty of care is so important. And our visionary Congressman Auchincloss explained about why preemption standards are so important in case there's a in case there's a glitch, in case someone needs to assert their rights under state law. We owe it to our kids, we owe it to the kids whose pictures are breaking all of our hearts right now to get this right and to actually pass a bill and not a fig leaf bill because I'm going to tell you something. I don't want to be sitting here in a couple of years looking at this bill that we passed, this fig leaf bill. I don't want to be sitting here looking at the bill with a whole new crop of moms and dads holding a whole new set of photos of kids that we've lost because Congress did not achieve our goals and we fell and we fell short of our commitment to the families of America and I yield back.

Thank you, the gentlelady yields back and the chair recognizes Mrs. Fedorchak of North Dakota for five minutes for speak on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your leadership on this issue. Also want to acknowledge all the parents in the room and and recognize your pain and your concern. As a mother of three, I share that. I have three children. I, my husband and I raised them in the wild wild west of internet and online exposure. They're now 20, 22 and 24. So they were going through this when all of this was new. I remember the day my daughter came home and asked for Snapchat and my husband and I looked at each other. What is Snapchat? And then she explained it and said oh it's this fun app where you get these photos and then they vanish. And my husband said why would we ever allow you to have a app designed to send things that vanish? That can't be good. So we said no and we said no and no and no. That was what we said all through their growing up but it was really really hard. We would turn on the parental control devices, have no clue how to use them, we'd forget the passwords, then they'd be locked out for hours or days while we figured this all out. It was a wild wild west. I would have loved to have some of the items included in this bill today that our chairman is bringing forward. It would have been a huge step in the right direction for for my parent, for me and my husband. Things like requiring the platforms to put safeguards in place to address harms for minors. Limit design features that result in compulsive usage. Online safeguards for kids that are turned on by default. That should be the standard. That's a simple change. Prohibiting platforms from advertising illegal products to kids. Prohibiting platforms from defaulting to algorithms that feed minors more and more the information they're interested in. I love this one, providing parental controls over minors' app downloads. Just not allowing minors to to download apps at will without a parent being involved. These are significant steps in the right direction. It'll allow states' attorney generals to enforce federal standards. Enforcement is a huge piece of the challenge, bringing our local and state officials on board to help with that is a step in the right direction. It's not perfect. I will admit it's not perfect but there's some really powerful tools here and I urge my colleagues on the other side to join us, take these steps forward. We can do more down the road but this is a very important step in the right direction. So thank you, Mr. Guthrie for bringing it forward. I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back and the chair recognizes the gentlelady from Massachusetts, Ms. Trahan for five minutes to speak on the bill.

I move to strike the last word.

Gentlelady is recognized to speak on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Protecting our kids online is one of the most urgent responsibilities that we face. It's a crisis for families in every community, in every state in our country with devastating consequences as represented by the parents here today holding pictures of their lost children, their beautiful kids. That's why I am so tired of sitting here year after year, markup after markup, watching Congress act like we're taking this issue seriously but passing nothing that's helpful. Parents and kids deserve better from their legislators than this song and dance that we go through every Congress. They deserve constitutional, privacy preserving and evidence-based solutions, not political theater. I first want to acknowledge Ranking Member Pallone and his team for working toward a bipartisan kids safety package. I'm disheartened that that spirit of collaboration was ultimately not reciprocated in the KIDS Act. And make no mistake, there is a bipartisan path forward. In fact, there are places where I think the KIDS Act represents some modest progress. On constitutionality, this bill inches away from the content-based regulation that the Supreme Court and district courts have repeatedly told us violates the First Amendment. The KIDS Act doesn't get there fully but it's moving in the right direction because laws that get struck down in court, they don't protect anyone. On age verification, the bill appears to recognize that a papers-please internet, where all must identify themselves in every app, on every website, is terrible for privacy and cybersecurity. And once the infrastructure exists to track us online, our government may very well leverage it. We're already seeing this administration and their appetite for domestic surveillance. Finally, I appreciate the bill's inclusion of transparency measures like third-party audits, but I wish it went further to protect our independent researchers who represent some of our best watchdogs. Despite these improvements, there's no way I can support what's in front of me. On preemption, I'm concerned, as many of my colleagues already pointed out, about the inconsistent approach across different titles and sections of the bill that would displace state laws that are working. Similarly, I share parents' concerns that the Kids Act could potentially negate scores of product liability lawsuits that I believe should have their day in court. On enforcement, I think this bill puts too much trust in an under-resourced FTC and disempowers state attorneys general. We should be making up for gaps in federal enforcement, not widening them. But we should be careful not to let the nature of the bills before us define the horizon of what this committee can do to protect our children online. There are whole policy areas that are entirely missing from the discussion, and we should say so. So let me just briefly reiterate my three-pronged strategy that I believe would actually protect kids in a way that uplifts privacy and respects the limits of the First Amendment. First, restrictions on data collection that disrupts predatory business models. Second, competition policy that gives parents and kids real choices, like the App Store Freedom Act that I'm leading with Representative Kat Cammack. And third, strong independent enforcement that holds companies accountable. On data privacy in particular, this committee has plenty of material to learn from. There's model bills led by leaders on both sides of the aisle, both sides of this committee, dozens of state laws, and international statutes. There's no shortage of policy options; we just need the political will. That's why, you know, I was pleased when last year Chairman Guthrie and Vice Chair Joyce announced a privacy working group. Now, although that group consists only of Republicans, its formation signaled that data privacy is foundational to any online safety regime, a stance that I agree with wholeheartedly. But time is running out to get privacy legislation across the finish line before this Congress is over. And we need to get this done. And I'm sure that I'm not the only Democrat ready to collaborate with the working group. I stand ready, first as a mom to 15 and 11-year-old daughters, and second as a legislator, to fight for a better future, to honor your courage being here today, a digital future for our kids that is safe, one that we can be proud of. Thank you, I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back, the chair recognizes Mr. Kean from New Jersey for five minutes to speak on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful to the Chairman Guthrie and his team for their tireless efforts to address the growing threats that children face online. Kids Internet Digital Safety Act, or Kids Act, takes an important step to address these concerns and harms. Particularly, I want to highlight how this bill addresses the dangerous harms online gaming chats present to minors. Safer Gaming Act, a bill I introduced, was included in the Kids Act. The online gaming provisions in this bill provide robust protections to keep kids safe on online video game platforms and prevent harmful interactions with strangers and predators. It ensures that every user under the age of 17 cannot participate in a chat unless they receive approval from their parents. Social gaming poses a very real threat to minors. The data is alarming. Nearly 70 percent of teens report playing online games with strangers at least weekly. We know that predators often use the shared interest of a video game to build trust with a child. Statistics show approximately two-thirds of minors say an online-only contact has asked them to move from a public chat into a private conversation on another platform. This vulnerability can lead to child exploitation and must be stopped. Kids Act takes an important step in addressing these harms. It states that if a user is under the age of 17, they should not be participating in chats, particularly with adults, unless a parent explicitly allows it. I have heard too many stories of New Jersey families and American families who have suffered due to a lack of robust protections for children and teens. Kids Act gives parents the choice and the tools to limit their child's ability to communicate with strangers online, disrupting this cycle and protecting users from malicious encounters with strangers. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back, and the chair recognizes Mr. Peters from California for the...

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. So today we're considering the Online Safety Act, a bill that could transform the way kids interact with the internet by changing rules around algorithms, data sharing, and private messaging. And while the internet can offer unimaginable opportunities, it also comes with real risks. Over the last few years, we've repeatedly heard from individuals like the parents who sit with us today about the ways in which their family members have been harmed online. Algorithms on social media platforms can suggest or amplify harmful content to kids, leading them down a dangerous path. Additionally, addictive design features like infinite scrolling, autoplay, and push notifications, which are intentionally designed to maximize engagement, can be especially detrimental for minors who are spending more and more time online. And to the parents here today, thank you for being here. Thank you for sharing your stories. Thank you for your advocacy on behalf of kids like yours to make sure that other families do not experience what you've had to endure. And I apologize to you that we will not come up today with something that's going to answer what we need. Congress has a responsibility to create guardrails where industry self-regulation has failed, and the Kids Online Safety Act before us today falls short of that. I want to just highlight again the main thing I think we need is a duty of care. The current Senate version contains a duty of care provision that holds tech companies legally liable for violations of the bill and would require that platforms design and operate their platforms in ways that mitigate risks to kids. You know, the chairman referenced the idea of extra enforcement from outside agencies, but these companies will whisk those away like so many flies. It's not going to matter to them. What you need is a duty of care that imposes a duty, which also sets a legal standard, and has to be on their bottom line because only those companies are in a position to actually do the work to protect these kids. From the outside, we can't do that. So you have to put a duty of care on the bottom line of these companies because that's the way that they'll be incentivized to respond and to do the right thing, and it's the only way. And we don't have that today. We have that in the Senate bill, and we're going to have to have that before we come to something that's really going to solve the concerns that you all have and that we all share over here. And I don't want to attribute anyone's to anyone bad motives, but this is just a weak, weak attempt. Let me say too, I thought Mr. Ruiz explained really well that if we enacted this, it would actually set us backward in a lot of places. So it would actually make the situation worse by preempting the state laws that are out there. Now, my colleagues know, by the way, that I'm a fan of one standard, one national standard that's a strong standard that can be interpreted by courts consistently, that's not too hard to implement for folks so that we can have new competitors enter the market. We don't have that today, so I will not support preemption. But I want my colleagues to know that if we can come up with a standard that protects everyone, I'm open to preemption. I'd like one federal standard that we could rely on, but this is not it. So I will vote against this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me. And today, I will surprise many people by voting against the preemption provisions because I'm big for one federal standard, but I would not want to use this to preempt what's out there today. This would make the situation worse, and I think we've got more work to do. So I'm sorry about that, but you know we have a lot of people in here who want to address your concerns in a way that will really be meaningful to you and will work. And so thank you for being with us, and with that I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Is there any further discussion on the Republican side? Seeing none, the gentlelady from Washington, Dr. Schrier, is recognized for five minutes. I'm just going to go in seniority.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. I am incredibly frustrated by this markup today and the inclusion of this highly partisan package. The so-called Kids Act includes not just a watered-down version of the Kids Online Safety Act, or KOSA, but a version that will be actively harmful to kids and that I believe sets back our progress on holding Big Tech accountable. The original and the Senate-passed versions of KOSA included the duty of care standard. This standard means that social media companies must exercise care in the implementation of its design features to actually prevent and mitigate harms like compulsive and prolonged use. And a strong federal duty of care standard would be an enormous protection for kids online when we know for a fact that despite knowing the harms, tech companies have designed social media apps to keep kids hooked as long as possible. In 2020, Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, conducted a study internally on the effect of users of deactivating their social media accounts. And the results showed that users actually reported lower feelings of depression, anxiety, loneliness, and social isolation. So what did Meta do? They buried it. Big Tech knows exactly what their platforms are doing to their users, and there are no users more vulnerable out there than kids. Enforcing a duty of care would change these companies' behavior because it would allow us and parents to hold them accountable for the harms that they are causing to kids. But this bill has not only eliminated the duty of care standard included in previous versions, it actually bans any duty of care at the federal or state level. How convenient, considering that the assumption of a duty of care is the basis of most of the lawsuits from parents whose children have died as a result of social media harms. And by the way, it is parents who are pleading for these standards, parents who have lost their kids because of the very real dangers of social media and who have lost so much and still come here to Congress to try to make sure that other parents don't lose their children too. People who are watching this on TV can't see that dozens of these heartbroken parents are here today. And they want a stronger bill. And they're nodding right now because they want a stronger bill. Several visited me yesterday, and they asked me to vote against this watered-down bill that will not prevent more deaths. Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful Mr. Ruiz already requested that this letter be entered into the record. It is signed by 161 parents whose children have died and 283 parents whose children suffered severe psychological harm from social media that opposes the version of KOSA that we are voting on today. This package and this version of KOSA are a pale comparison to the bipartisan, bicameral version of KOSA that I was so proud to help introduce and advocate for in the last Congress. And instead today we're voting on a version that would not only fail to truly hold Big Tech accountable for how they've hurt kids, we have a version that would prevent grieving parents from seeking justice and that would have ensured that social media companies could be held accountable. Big Tech is preying on our kids. There is no dispute about that. They are designing apps for purposeful addiction and profiteering off the results, and today we are voting on a bill that would make sure they can keep doing just that. My colleagues say this bill will protect kids online, but it actually just undermines every way we have and parents have to enforce protection. I've been a pediatrician for over 20 years, and I have seen firsthand how the rise in social media has impacted our kids. And I know how damaging social media and online addictions are for a developing brain, and we are already years behind, as you have heard from my colleagues, in passing the kind of comprehensive protections that our kids need and deserve. And we can't keep wasting time with these partisan exercises and actually damaging legislation. So I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill that protects Big Tech more than it protects children. We owe children and families so much more, and we can and we must do better. And I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion? Gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion? The gentlelady from Texas is recognized for five minutes. The gentlelady from Texas is recognized.

Thank you, Chairman Guthrie. I want to wholeheartedly agree with you that protecting kids' online safety is an absolute imperative for this committee and for this Congress. But I do not agree with you that the Kids Act does that. And it's really important that we get this right, and this bill doesn't. I want to make clear that this is not a case of making the perfect bill the enemy of a very good bill. The objections that you've heard from my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle today are about the exceptions that swallow the rule, the specific provisions in this bill that my colleagues have already explained in much more detail that render the rest of it meaningless. And that's the very opposite of what we are supposed to be doing here. And there are many parents who are here today in this hearing room with us, many more who cannot be with us in this hearing but who are watching, who are advocating, who are pleading with us, and who are living with loss and grief and fear for their children, their children who have been harmed, their children who have died, their children who are continuing to be harmed as a result of online activity. They want us to do something, but they don't just want us to do just anything so that we can say we did something, which is very much what this bill feels like. They want us to get it right, and they want us to actually help make kids safer online. So I want to use my time that I have to recognize some of the parents who are here today who oppose today's bill and for whom we must continue to work to get this legislation right. We have with us today Amy Neville, parent of Alex Neville, forever 14. Mary Rodee, parent of Riley Basford, forever 16. Tony Roberts, parent of England Roberts, forever 14. Laurie Schotten and Avery Schotten, parents of Annalise Schotten, forever 18. Trisha Macieski, parent of Levi Macieski, forever 13. Juliana Arnold, parent of Coco Conar, forever 17. Jenny DeSerio, parent of Madison Edens, forever 16. Erin Ping, parent of Avery Ping, forever 16. Kristin Bride, parent of Carson, forever 16. Jamie from Kentucky, parent of Audrey, forever 14. Steve Kay of Washington, parent of John Doe, 13. Thank you all for being here. Thank you for turning your overwhelming loss and pain into purpose for the protection of kids and families across this country. We see you, we hear you, we are grateful to you, we are listening to you, and we will do better for you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Mr. Carter from Louisiana is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.

Mr. Chairman, thank you. I consistently hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying this is not a perfect bill. And respectfully, I say it's not even close. Look at the faces of the surviving family members, the parents. Look at the beautiful faces of their children. They took time out to be with us today because they want to weigh in, because they want to be a part of a real solution, not a window-dressed solution, not one that gives Big Tech a pass. As a father of two boys and a mental health advocate, protecting youth mental health is a top priority for me. That's why I have serious concerns about AI chatbots and their impact on our children. AI is a powerful tool that can be beneficial when used correctly, but studies and data evaluating the risk and impacts of children using chatbots online are extremely limited. This puts our children's mental health in vulnerable and dangerous positions. More work must be done in this space, and a study would be a step in the right direction, not a piece of legislation that will be shelved, never again to be revisited. The bill we're currently considering, the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act, includes a study that on this includes a study that this very issue. However, it's unfortunate that the bipartisan agreement that we have this study is being overshadowed by a larger package of bills for which we have yet to reach a compromise. For weeks, Republicans and Democrats have been working together to reach an agreement that will protect children online children's online safety and data privacy. Something I know you all want in this room. I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are sincere in their efforts to protect our children, but the pressure from Big Tech has overshadowed even that sincere effort. I believe their efforts are sincere. However, we have fallen short because we have allowed Big Tech to rear its ugly head, its ugly checkbook, its far-reaching impact. We must protect children's online safety and data. Something I know all members really want. I urge my Republican colleagues to come back to the negotiating table, work with us to have a real, robust, meaningful, comprehensive plan to give comfort to these families, to give comfort to these people who took time out of their schedules. This should not be partisan. This should not be about anything other than reigning in the power of the internet, the power of the predators who would seek to destroy, to infiltrate systems that impact our young people. We see it every single day. We see the potential leave us far too soon. The next cure for cancer, the next president, the next Supreme Court justice may very well have been any of these beautiful children who had bright futures but fell prey to predators who took advantage of weaknesses in a system that today we're playing games with because we left the table while we were making great progress. And you will notice that they've buried in good components of this bill with really bad components of this bill, which forces us to vote against some measures that we like because they are tied together with measures that are woefully short in preparing and providing the kind of relief that you've asked for. As a father, I feel your pain. It's painful to watch you sit here knowing that we're at the cusp of doing something great, but we're stopping far, far before we cross that line of having meaningful, not window dressing, meaningful protections that will save the lives of our children. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing. Table this measure and let's go back to the drawing board and come up with something that's real. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired and I yield.

Gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez.

Thank you, Chairman. I want to thank all the family members for being here today, for lifting up the stories that you come and advocate with. You know, I have two kids, they're five and three. And so many of us have young kids, and we thought that coming to Congress we'd be able to take on the challenges that have impacted your lives directly. And it's frustrating to sit in this room and have to see you here, that to know that this isn't a partisan divide, that there have been versions of this bill which has the things that we want. So we're not asking for the impossible. So don't make it seem like we're the ones who are being partisan when you're driving this version forward when you know it doesn't do enough. And the hundreds of parents who have signed a letter have said it does not do enough, and you're going to turn your back on them. Turn your back on all the children who are impacted by Big Tech. You know, we say that when we look at the future generation and the things that they're dealing with, the challenges they have, the aspirations that they have, that we raise them. Our decisions are the create the environment that they were raised in. And we failed. People that were in this chamber before us have failed. And now we have an opportunity to get it right moving forward for my children, for others, for grandchildren, for nieces and nephews, and we're not taking that opportunity. And my colleagues across the aisle are saying trust us on this piece of legislation. When in this Congress they sat here and said trust us on the one big beautiful bill and that a trillion dollars out of Medicare won't hit families. That the expiration of the ACA tax credits won't make healthcare more affordable, expensive. And we've seen the impacts that this has, that's had on families across the country, and we can't take your word on it. I'd rather take the word of all the parents here who are asking us to go back to negotiate in good faith as we have to get a bill that actually moves us in the right direction, that has a duty of care standard, that has a more narrow preemption provision so we can move the ball in the right direction. But we can't sit here and pat ourselves on the back with this legislation when we know it doesn't do enough based on the prior bipartisan bills that this committee has entertained that are have been before the Senate. So I'm a no on this bill. And I encourage all my colleagues who have done good work across the aisle to be a no. Don't settle for this. Listen to the parents, listen to the advocates in this room, do the right thing and vote no and come back to the table and let's get something done because if it is bipartisan then we will know it works for all Americans, it's resilient and it will get the job done. I literally beg you to vote no. Listen to these folks and please don't make them come back for more hearings in future Congresses because we failed to do our job today. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back and the chair recognizes the gentlelady from Virginia, Ms. McClellan for five minutes to speak on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I also want to thank the parents. I'm one of the less than one percent of members of Congress who is a mother to children under 18. I've got a 10-year-old girl and a 15-year-old boy. And I am constantly trying to strike the right balance between giving them enough freedom to grow and develop and figure out who they are like I had as a kid as part of Generation X when my parents literally would let me go out and play until the lights came on, the streetlights came on. And it was much easier for them to strike that balance between giving me that freedom to develop who I am today and keeping me safe. And you have experienced my worst nightmare. Now my kids were born right after smartphones were invented in the beginning of social media. I worked for a tech company. I thought I was pretty sophisticated at figuring out how this stuff works. But it changes so rapidly. I can't keep up. I can't keep up with these algorithms. I can't keep up with the new apps and what they do and how predators are finding new ways to exploit it. Just like as a parent sometimes I can't keep up with the fact that my children know more about this technology and how it changes than I do. And they can figure out how to get around things that we think will keep them safe. A lower technology example, our schools ban cell phones. You have to bring it in and put it in a Yondr pouch because parents lost their minds if they said kids couldn't take them with them at all because the phone can be a tool to know they're safe. And yet these kids figured out instantly how to get around that policy. They can figure it out. Now I know everybody in this committee wants to keep our kids safe and is trying to reach the right goal, but I think this debate boils down to two simple issues. One, who should bear the brunt of keeping our kids safe online? Parents who are doing the best they can in an incredibly complicated internet ecosystem or the tech companies that develop and operate the apps and the programs and the games that the kids use, which most parents can't begin to fathom how they work or how rapidly they change. And without a duty of care, this bill effectively shifts that burdens to the parents and says you got to be the expert on the new algorithm and how it's going to addict your child. You have to be the expert on how sophisticated criminals figure out how to exploit your children rather than the tech companies. I think that's the wrong answer. Second, these bills aren't future-proof. They can't be. Technology changes too rapidly. That's why they should be the floor and not the ceiling for protections for our kids. And who is better positioned to respond rapidly to evolving technology? Our states that have been incubators of innovation or Congress? Well having been in both now Congress is extraordinarily slow. We're not good at being proactive. We're not that good at being reactive quickly. Just this Congress alone since March, 62 legislative days have been cancelled, effectively delaying any legislation for at least two months. Last Congress it took several weeks for us just to elect a speaker and then to elect a second one. States can respond much more quickly and often be more innovative than Congress and yet this broad preemption provision handcuffs the very laboratories of innovation. Let me ask a question. How long has it taken Congress to adopt a comprehensive privacy legislation? Oh I forgot, we haven't done it yet. We owe it to our children and all parents, especially these, to get it right. And this bill doesn't do that. I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Any further discussion? Gentleman from Texas is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.

Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Gentleman is recognized to speak on the bill.

Every parent in America knows the internet isn't the same place that it was 20 years ago. A lot has changed and as a parent of a 19-year-old who was recently a teenager, I know that children today are growing up in a digital ecosystem that is driven by algorithms and data harvesting and platforms that are truly designed to keep them scrolling. And Congress has a responsibility to step in and enact meaningful guardrails to rein in some of the study, some of the study and harmful effects on children's long-term well-being. It should be no surprise to anyone that even children now are saying that they wish that they didn't have these social media devices and some of these apps in their lives. Even the children are waking up. And we know that as parents that social media companies track what children watch and what they click, what they search, and who they interact with. It's about setting some basic guardrails up so companies can't exploit kids for data for profit. Protecting kids online should absolutely not be a partisan issue. I think that Democratic parents and Republican parents alike are hearing from families worried about what their kids are being exposed to online. And if we're serious about protecting our kids, then we have to work together to pass something that's strong and that's enforceable and contains privacy protections. If we are not serious, then Republicans will continue to ignore us and move forward with this bill. Instead of working with Democrats to craft a strong privacy standard that can pass the House, they're pushing messaging bills that ignore the input of parents and that's not good. If you know how harmful these platforms can be for kids, then why turn these solutions into partisan fighting instead of actually rolling up our sleeves and getting something done for the kids and the parents of America? And I want to be clear here. Democrats are not trying to weaken protections. We want stronger protections. And I got to tell you something and this is something that for the tech companies and everybody out there to hear. If we don't pass it now, because parents want something and like I say, kids are saying that they want to do something. Something's going to eventually give. We ought to be taking proactive steps to do something now to prevent future tragedies because the status quo is just not going to, it's not going to stand. It won't, it's not sustainable the road that we're on right now. So we can either do it now or wait for more tragedies to happen and do it later. Let's work together, let's pass strong privacy protections for kids and finally bring our laws into the 21st century. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Auchincloss for five minutes to speak on the bill.

Chairman, thank you. I want to address something that is actually not being discussed overtly right now but is very much a common theme in a lot of the lobbying that happens around these bills, which is China. So I served on the Select Committee on China for two years and was actually an original co-lead of the bill to force the divestment of TikTok from ownership and control by the Chinese Communist Party. So though I consider myself in many ways a hawk on the competition between the United States and China on technology, whether it's online technology, whether it's biotechnology, etc. These companies exploit that patriotic drive for the United States to maintain a science and technology edge in the 21st century in an unbelievably cynical way. They come office to office and they say, you know if you regulate us, we're all going to lose to China. That's what's going to happen. And I just want to pre-butt that right now how absurd that claim is. First of all, look at what China itself does for its own social media usage for young children. Okay, it's a 90-minute time limit every single day, no usage at night, and it's all educational content. You think that slop that is spread across the internet that our kids are subjected to happens in China? No way. Nope, they have much stronger content controls. Now I am not claiming that that's what we should do here in the United States, that's a different system, we have different values. But let's not claim that somehow China is going to out-compete us on tech because they allow their tech companies to attention-frack our children the way that our tech companies want to do. The way that we are going to out-compete China is by investing in education, in building a thousand trade schools across this country to give our kids the skills they need to succeed, by surging one-on-one high-dosage tutoring in math and literacy after we've seen declines in academic performance since the pandemic. We do not need these tech companies to also claim that they are the ones who should be stewards of our children and the architects of our strategy against China. We can do that by investing in our children and I don't want to hear claims that somehow common-sense regulation on behalf of parents and families holds us back in competing with China. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Seeing none, I have an amendment at the desk entitled Guthrie-008. The clerk will report the amendment. - _008. The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7757 offered by Mr. Guthrie of Kentucky.

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and I recognize myself for five minutes in support of the amendment. Let me start with saying that we need to do more. We absolutely do need to do more. And that's why I have additional bills on the markup today. This bill, the KIDS Act, reflects where we could get in a bipartisan way. That's where we could get both sides to agree. But we have additional bills on the menu today. And we do respect the parents here. It's important that you're here. It is critical that you're here. Mr. Chapman is here. You guys come and you advocate and you want to change things so your kids can be better. We have Sammy's bill on the floor today in honor of your daughter. And it is... and so it's important that it's here because... and the reason it's not in this package of bills is because we couldn't get bipartisan support. Of all the things everybody talked about today, what Sammy's bill does is allow a parent to have complete control of their child's phone. Complete control of their child's phone. And we couldn't get bipartisan agreement on that because we're... I don't know why, maybe because we're going up to the age 16. We had a member on this side of the aisle say they had a daughter that was 15. A lot of the names that were written out were 14 and 15 and 16. Current laws brings it to 13. We want to bring it to 16. And so we are moving forward and people will have the opportunity today when we vote for Sammy's Law. Now, there are Democrats and Republicans... it's Debbie Wasserman, gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Carter, doing this bipartisan. And we couldn't get it in this portion of the bill because we couldn't get bipartisan agreement because it gives parents complete control and oversight of their child's phone up until they're 17 years old. And we couldn't get bipartisan agreement on that. So all the stuff that we're hearing from the other side of the aisle, we're going to see when Sammy's Law comes up for a vote what they really believe and where they really stand. And the claim that Big Tech supports this bill and what we're doing today, you only have to look at social media platforms today to see where Big Tech has activated against our work today because we're holding them accountable. We are fighting for parents' rights. We're here to protect kids. And some of the comments that people made about the underlying bill, this amendment that I just called up makes these changes. It seeks to ensure that parents do have the justice that the other side in courts. We've added a rule of construction to the conflict preemption in the KOSA bill that clearly carves out multiple critical state laws. That's where the preemption's too strong, preemption's not strong enough. What we do is make sure that state laws on trespass, state laws on contract, state laws on tort, and state laws on product liability are still in effect from this bill. That's what this amendment does. The FTC Acts and the state data general state consumer protection laws still stand, such as many FTC Acts and the state department data privacy legislation still stand. Adding this rule of construction result of talking with stakeholders and hearing interest from stakeholders and hearing the position of parents with stakeholders, including trial attorneys. We talked with trial attorneys involved in litigation to help ensure that the KIDS Act will not disrupt ongoing cases against Big Tech. What you heard from the other side, this amendment ensures that you have the opportunity to go forward. We still can't get them to support it. These changes address ongoing efforts like litigation against Roblox that will not be affected, will not be affected by this law. In fact, I spoke to our home state attorney general. Kentucky is involved in the case against Roblox. I absolutely want the case against Roblox to go forward. So it says this will not undermine their current litigation. So you got to know what's the facts and what you've been hearing throughout this morning. The KIDS Act works in tandem with this important legislation and preventing the type of litigation is not our intent. This rule of construction which is added in this amendment helps make clear that we're working with law enforcement officials to protect children and teens online. So those who are here that are hearing that 14, 15, and 16-year-olds, just know we're here to protect that. That's part of where our discussions broke down, which unfortunately it did. But we're going to have the opportunity to go on the record later today to see where people stand on these issues. And I will tell you, my side of the aisle is going to support it. And I will yield back and I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey.

I just want to be brief, but I do want to stress, Mr. Chairman, that I don't believe that this AINS corrects the objections that the various Democrats have been making in their statements over the last hour or so. And that's why we're going to proceed with a number of amendments which we do think will make improvements to the bill. But this AINS does not correct the objections that we've had to this bill. And with that, I yield back.

Does anybody else have discussion of the AINS? Gentlelady from California on our side of the aisle? Does anybody on our side of the aisle discuss? Gentlelady from California is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start by saying that AAJ, the American Association for Justice, who are lawyers that represent families and parents on litigation, opposes this amendment. So to suggest that this amendment fixes that and that it's not going to be disruptive at all to parents' abilities to file a lawsuits and to hold social media companies accountable is I think disingenuous. And so I wanted to start by correcting that record. Second, Mr. Chairman, I disagree with your assessment of how you started the conversation in saying that this bill is... that this package of bills is failing and why it's failing. I want to start by reminding everybody that in 2024, this committee chaired by Cathy McMorris Rodgers had a hearing on Kids Online Safety Act. The Senate passed that bill by a vote of 91 to three. That's a truly bipartisan effort. Then the chair of this committee, then committee, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, had a hearing here and it passed out of this committee unanimously. That's what bipartisanship is. It's not taking a bill that was truly bipartisan, gutting the bill to basically say, hey, we're going to make it harder for parents to hold social media companies accountable. We're going to make it harder for parents. Who are we first for? Are we first the parents? Are we for the kids or the big money? Who are we for? Now, I couldn't help but remember I had to attend the inauguration of who was at the inauguration. Let's see. Big Tech CEOs. Lots of them. And as if I remember correctly, they donated a million dollars each. Did that have some influence? I don't know. I'm just noticing facts that we were able to do this in a bipartisan way. And now all of a sudden, there's efforts to put in provisions that are going to help prevent liability from Big Tech and from the social media companies. So I had not planned on speaking today, but when I hear some inaccuracies and want to... when we hear about talking about bipartisanship, there is a bipartisan way to do it. We have done this. Getting a bill that was bipartisan though and gutting it and then throwing in 11 other bills to it and putting it into a package and saying you see Democrats are not for kids' safety is total misinformation, disinformation, misguidance. Let's go back to the real bipartisanship. Let's go back to my colleagues who actually were for this other piece of legislation in 2024 that had this duty of care that was on the platforms, not on parents and not on kids and not making it harder to hold them liable. And so with that, I oppose not just the amendment, but the package and agree we should table this and go back to what was done and where we were at when we had almost everybody in the Senate and at least everybody in this committee in 2024. And I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for... could I... will you yield me a couple seconds anyway?

Yes, sir. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman.

Well, thank you. So the gentlelady from California, in my opening statement, I just said we all want child safety. If anything came out of my mouth that... that we're all want child safety. I'm... we all want our children to be protected on the internet. What I'm saying is the package of bills before us, it's not bipartisan in the sense that every both sides agree with it. It's all of the bills that we could agree upon in a bipartisan way. Some things fell out and they've been added to separate bills on the outside of this package is my point. And also there was concern that...

Will the gentleman yield for a minute? That's not accurate though. You're suggesting then the Kids Online Safety part is bipartisan and it's not. That's why we're not supporting this. Because you guys gutted it and changed it.

Right. What I'm saying is we didn't... this is where we could get to on the bipartisan negotiation. So the second thing that I want to... so but I also want to say is that there was concerns that people had that this would stop the litigation in the courts. And this has been added to make sure that the Roblox my state's going after them and I'm glad they are. And so this makes sure those continue forward. So I'll yield back to Mr. Weber.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And that's exactly what I raised when I discussed with you and the staff that I was concerned cause of actions would not be had, would not be had. Number one. And number two, it would violate what I would actually supersede states' rights. And I didn't like that. We heard from some of our schools in the district that they didn't like it. And so we had the discussion and you made it clear that it didn't supersede states' rights. It will hopefully it will not affect any cause of actions because our kids are important and our families are important. And when these things happen, then those Big Techs need to be held accountable. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Gentleman's time. Gentlelady from... yield back. He yielded back. Okay. Gentlelady from Michigan's recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.

Thank you. I yield what time he needs to the ranking minority Frank Pallone.

Thank you. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Michigan. Look, I don't want to belabor this too much because I do think we should get to the amendments that we do believe as Democrats will help make this bill better. But I just have to have to explain. There were plenty of negotiations over the last few months, right? The bottom line is that most of the things that we as Democrats wanted in the bill were not included, right? And I just want to mention a few things why we have a problem. And you've heard it all from my Democratic colleagues. But basically we think that this bill lets Big Tech off the hook with a nearly impossible to meet knowledge standard. It stops progress to protect kids in the state with preemption of state laws, which is also going to impact ongoing lawsuits brought by parents. It makes vulnerable kids less safe, including kids in unsafe home environments. And also as I mentioned, it doesn't include legislation to stop data brokers from profiting off of kids' data. So there are all these things and more that have been mentioned. I suggest we just get to the amendments at this point, which we believe if passed would help correct the deficiencies in this bill. I don't think they're going to pass because the Republicans will probably oppose them, but hope springs eternal. And I would yield, you want? I yield back to the gentlewoman for permission.

Will the gentlelady yield to me?

Yes, I yield.

Thank you. The gentlewoman from Colorado.

Thank you. Okay, I'm about to get lawyerly now. And I want to say I appreciate my colleague from Texas being concerned about the state, the preemption of the state laws. The problem is the language in this AINS that is allegedly designed to protect the preemption or the state tort law, it actually, the preemption provision plus a rule of construction carving out tort law does not save the cases or state laws that are more protective of kids and here's why. House COSA creates so many conflicts with more protective state laws that a rule of construction can't save them. The conflict preemption provision will control and wipe out the cases and the state laws that they're based on. So a rule of construction won't work. The exceptions have to be exceptions to the conflict preemption as exceptions to the preemption language itself. So let me try to explain that a little more in depth. Okay, the House COSA says platforms owe no duty of care. State laws are based on assumption of duty of care. So if you knock out the duty of care on conflict preemption, there's no tort law to save. There's no negligence case if you have no duty, if you can follow that. So also House COSA says the only duty platforms have is to write their own rules and policies and as long as they have their own rule, anything that holds them to a different standard is quote, in conflict with House COSA. And so also it says actual knowledge, actual knowledge is required for both regulation and enforcement. So tech platforms can't be held accountable and this is exactly what Congresswoman Castor and others have been saying. Tech platforms can't be held accountable unless they have actual knowledge or willfully disregard that a child is on their platforms. State laws say that tech platforms can be held accountable if they reasonably should have known that a child was on their platforms. That's the difference. So if we're going to be serious about protecting parents' cases, you have to say that in the bill. Otherwise, the courts are going to rule that they're not protected. One more thing. The Supreme Court has abolished the preemption against, I'm sorry, the presumption against preemption in express preemption cases. They said in 2016 in a case that quote, because the statute contains an express preemption clause, we do not invoke any presumption against preemption but instead focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress's preemptive intent. That means that the preemption language that's routinely used to bar supplementary, more protective state law cases, even when they provide essential protections for families and I have more but I think you get the gist of it. And if not, I'm happy to say it over again. Thank you and I yield back.

Thank you. The ranking member wants to move to amendments, so is that any further discussion on the AINS? Seeing none, the gentlelady from Indiana is recognized for her amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The clerk will report or gentlelady identify her amendment.

HOUCHI_084.

The clerk will report.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7757.

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thirty years ago, Congress decided that 13 was the age of internet adulthood. Not because science said so, but because it was politically convenient. And in 30 years, no one has ever gone back to ask whether or not we got it right. We didn't. Researchers have documented that the most dangerous windows of harm fall between the ages of 11 and 13 for girls and 14 and 15 for boys. These aren't statistics to me. These are children. These are the ages when depression sets in, when eating disorders take hold, when kids should be playing sports and making friends and instead are staring at screens being told they're not enough. I have sat with parents who've lost their children to the harms of these platforms. That's why I'm here today. I have my own personal story about having an inability to take away an app that my 13-year-old daughter downloaded on her phone and when she was engaging in unsafe behaviors, I contacted the platform and had a complete inability to have the account deleted. They told me she's 13, she's legally able to have the account based on the 1996 law saying that a 13-year-old can have access to the internet. So my RESET Act asks a simple question, is 13 still the right threshold? The science says no, the data says no, parents who've lost children because of what happened to them online say no. At 16, adolescents are not yet adults, but they are more mature, more resilient, and better equipped to navigate these platforms than age 13. Personally, I would prefer this be 18. But we were trying to work in a bipartisan fashion and moving the threshold to 16 gets us ahead of the most dangerous exposure windows. This is not a radical idea. Australia has done it, the European Union is moving in the same direction, and big tech will push back. They always do. There are concerns that have been raised about the First Amendment, but the 11th Circuit has already signaled that laws like this can survive constitutional scrutiny. The RESET Act is designed with those legal principles in mind, creating a clear national standard enforced by the FTC and states' attorneys general. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you working with me and for being open to the case for a 16-year-old minimum standard. I'm committed to continuing to work with you on this and with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I yield back.

Will you yield to me? I just want to, before you yield back, I just want to say yes, we have worked together and will continue to work together on this issue. And I'll yield back to you and you yield back.

Thank you, I yield back.

The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.

Thank you, Chairman. I want to express my support for the principles that animate the RESET Act and this amendment. Thirteen, even if it were properly enforced, which it is not, is not the right age for internet adulthood. I think we've learned that over the last 20 years and Jonathan Haidt and The Anxious Generation I think has mapped out the science and the data in compelling fashion about the deterioration of children's mental health, cognitive development because of the wild west online realm that these digital empires have exposed them to. And so I support what the Congresswoman from Indiana is trying to do, which is raise that to at least 16. I'm committed to working with her on that in a bipartisan fashion. And I would also, I would invite members on both sides of this aisle, we've heard so many people speak eloquently, particularly our parents in this committee, about how frustrated we all are and how much we want to use the power that we have on this committee to address these harms. I want to invite those members on both sides of the aisle to come work with the Congresswoman from Indiana and me. We've got some momentum going. We got two bills that we've done already. We are working bipartisan, we are working in good faith, we are taking each other's feedback, and we want our group to get bigger. So come please work with us. I yield back.

Will the gentleman yield?

Yes, I'll yield to the Congresswoman from Indiana.

Thank you, Representative Auchincloss. I want to thank you for working with me on the bills that we've been able to work in a bipartisan fashion and also for your co-leadership of the Kids Online Safety Caucus. I would be remiss if I didn't mention that and encourage members on both sides of the aisle to join us in our efforts to work together to solve these issues. And I yield back to you.

Will you yield back to me?

I just want to echo that we will continue to work together on this. Is she withdrawing? No. Gentleman, so did you yield back, gentleman from Massachusetts, you yielded back? So the, anyone on the, so I have Mr. Bilirakis is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. As a co-sponsor of the RESET Act, I want to echo the comments of Ms. Houchin. I think it's common sense, folks. I think we've failed to remember that for several years, Facebook required college email to sign up. So it was intended, again, this was not intended for minors with regard to Facebook and they were effectively excluded from the site by the email domain requirement. Since the proliferation of the social media among our youth, we've seen harm. I mean, we've seen harm grow. It's right there. I mean, the evidence is there. And you know, I want to continue to work with the parents and again, our heart goes out to the parents. And I want to continue, we didn't walk away from the negotiating table, by the way. That's a fact. I want to work with my Democratic colleagues on this bill, this particular amendment, but the entire package. I want to commend the staffs. They've been working for years to get this right. And I think we have a great bill here. But I want to get back to Ms. Houchin's bill or particular amendment that she is going to withdraw, but I think it has to be said our kids are plainly addicted. Just like many of the adults here in this room. It's impacting their ability, our children to learn at school. It's causing isolation and depression. It's stunting creativity. It's literally changing the neural connections of their brain and even their physical growth and body posture. And I've seen it with my kids as well. Adults may be able to cope with this, but children cannot. They cannot. It's been proven. And the dangers only continue to grow. So I think the RESET Act and again, it's an amendment and I know the Chairman will work with us on this, is a great marker to have as we confront some difficult questions about the future of our youth. So we appreciate you very much and I want the parents to know that if this bill passes out of full committee, we will work with you. We will work with you to find some consensus and common ground before it gets to the floor. So thank you very much and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes gentleman from New Jersey for five minutes to speak on the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I heard Mr. Bilirakis say that the gentlewoman from Indiana was going to withdraw the amendment, but I haven't heard her say that. So maybe I can ask her if she intends to withdraw it, otherwise I'm going to just keep talking here.

I do intend to withdraw the amendment after debate.

Thank you very much.

Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you very much. I just want to echo some of the comments in a bipartisan fashion we've heard. I think 13 is too young. I think 16 is right. It's interesting they've referenced science. It's also true that the common law recognized a sliding scale for responsibility that a sliding scale roughly from 12 to about 16. And so it's not just science, it's long experience over the centuries that tells us that 13 is too young and that parents should be involved. I'll have to sit down and think about the concept maybe of going to 18 that my colleague mentioned, but 16 absolutely should be the minimum and I would hope that we would move towards Ms. Houchin's 16 number as we move forward and working on these concepts. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Gentleman yields back. Mr. Soto from Florida is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In Florida, we have this as the law of our state and it's something that is bipartisan. When you look at all the complexities of the duty of care and preemption and all these other things we're going to have to debate in this committee, one thing is actually pretty simple, which is that kids under 16 should not have access to social media unless parents agree to allow them to do that. We should be protecting kids, empowering parents, and this is something where you could get a lot of bipartisan support on. In Florida, you can't get a driver's license before 16. It's a challenge to be able to work before 16. There are a lot of things on the way to adulthood we allow at 16 and so that's why I think very rarely do all the Florida Democrats and Republicans all agree on something, but I think we have broad support for this issue and it's something I'd hope you'd seriously consider as we move through this and I yield back.

Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from North Dakota is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to my good friend Representative Houchin and Representative Auchincloss for leading on this issue. As a fellow mom of three, I couldn't agree more that the right age standard for using covered social media platforms should be 16. And here's why. At 13, kids are still learning how to navigate the world around them. At ages 13, 14, and 15, my kids were in junior high. They were flooded with hormones, flooded with insecurities, trying to figure out friendships and just trying to fit in. At age 13, kids are still kids. Their judgment, their resilience, and their understanding of long-term consequences are still developing. Yet today's social media platforms expose them to powerful algorithms designed to capture their attention, collect their personal data, and maximize their engagement. That is not a fair fight for a middle schooler. The RESET Act simply restores common sense. In nearly every other area of life, we recognize that minors need clear boundaries, especially when it comes to complex commercial interactions. We set age limits for driving, for contracts, for other activities where the risks are real. And online platforms are no different. This legislation draws a clear, enforceable line. It prevents companies from exploiting a vulnerable age group, requires the shutdown of under-16 accounts, and ensures that minors' personal data is deleted while giving families a short window to download their information. Just as importantly, it establishes a clear national standard so parents, kids, and companies all know the rules of the road. This isn't about keeping kids from technology. It's about giving them time to grow up before being thrown into a digital environment that robs them of their innocence and is dangerous to their well-being. I strongly support this amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same, either today or down the road as we work through these issues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on this amendment? Seeing none, gentlelady from Indiana is recognized.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your willingness to work on this issue continuously. It is extremely important we don't allow this big loophole. I ask unanimous consent at this time to withdraw my amendment and look forward to continuing to working on the issue.

Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. Are there further amendments to the gentlelady from Florida is recognized or for what purpose does the gentlelady from Florida seek recognition?

I have an amendment at the desk. It's Castor 049.

Castor 049. Clerk will report.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7757 offered by Ms. Castor.

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentlelady from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, reserve a point of order.

Point of order is reserved. Gentlelady from Florida is recognized for five minutes in support of her amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I get to the heart of my amendment, I have some good news out of the U.S. Senate and I want to bring it up now because it gives us an opportunity later when we get to COPPA 2.0 to actually do something meaningful. The United States Senate has just passed COPPA 2.0, which is essentially the Castor-Walberg version from the last Congress by unanimous consent this morning. So I highlight that because we could, when we get to that bill, reinstitute the bipartisan version and speed it on its way to passage. But this amendment, back to the KOSA and the Kids Act, would close the loopholes that exist throughout the Republican bill that would allow Big Tech to continue to harm kids, their safety, and their privacy. My amendment does two things. It strengthens the knowledge standard and it clarifies the preemption language. A stronger knowledge standard will hold the tech companies accountable. Otherwise, companies claim ignorance, right? They argue that they cannot be held responsible because they don't know who is using their platforms or what is happening on them, even though we know this is false. An actual knowledge standard that is applied throughout the bill right now is a giant loophole because proving actual knowledge is an incredibly high bar for enforcers to meet. It allows the social media companies to continue they look the other way when their platforms are harming kids and they leave parents and regulators with the burden of proving the company's intentions in court. So my updated knowledge standard expands it to they have to have actual knowledge or to have knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances. We know based upon recent testimony and court cases brought by grieving parents that the companies are aware of their harmful content. Yet they continue to try to hide behind these knowledge standards. Whistleblowers have corroborated these findings, showing that it is a deliberate choice to turn a blind eye to the foreseeable dangers. Families deserve assurance that companies like Meta cannot hide behind these knowledge standards. So what my amendment does, it closes this loophole throughout the entire package. We're going to create a legal framework that applies comprehensively across all of the provisions of the law. It ensures that knowledge standards are applied consistently and that platforms cannot pick and choose where they will act. This is a cohesive approach that is essential for the law to function effectively. It links legal duties and risk mitigation and platform responsibility. Additionally, my amendment also addresses preemption because we do not want to leave any room for companies to undermine state-level protections or claims. This makes clear that the law's protective intent is uniform, it's enforceable, and not subject to contradictory interpretations that could weaken safeguards for children. Members, my this amendment is kind of the heart of the difference. It is the giant loophole that tech companies will exploit. And I know you don't want to be party to that. I've heard I've heard you loud and clear that you are sincerely interested in making a difference and standing up to the tech companies. This is the amendment to prove it, along with what we can do to get COPPA 2.0 back to the bipartisan version. This is about accountability, consistency, and protection, things you can say you believe in. But if you keep the version as it is now, you belie all of the intent. Frankly, it looks like already Big Tech's fingerprints are all over this bill. They figured out a clever way to veil this is a cleverly veiled way to gut stronger state protections under the guise of child safety and we just shouldn't stand for it. We need to craft a strong law together and we can do this. We did it before in the last Congress. There's no reason why we should capitulate to the tech companies now. Let's stand up for kids. Let's reinsert the heart of the matter here with a stronger preemption, a stronger standard that they can't use as a shield in court. It's up to the responsibility that we have to kids and families, not the Big Tech companies. They have too much power here. Let's show them today that we stand with the parents and families and believe that we can make progress. Thank you. I urge you to vote yes on the Castor amendment. Thank you.

Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Cammack is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I seek recognition to speak in opposition to this amendment. And I want to thank my colleague from the Sunshine State for opening up and dovetailing this for me. She said that Big Tech's fingerprints are all over this bill. I find that to be a little bit hypocritical considering that the only proposal that was offered to this committee was actually written by Big Tech and they offered it. But I can tell you whose fingerprints are all over this amendment. The trial attorneys. The trial attorneys wrote this amendment. See, this amendment introduces a vague constructive knowledge standard that will act as a blank check for regulatory abuse by an undoubtedly future weaponized FTC. How do I know that? Well, one, I served on the weaponization committee last Congress and I witnessed an overreach that you cannot even begin to imagine. I witnessed Lina Khan, the Biden FTC chair, move without unduly burdening legitimate business activity from the commission's mission statement, fundamentally changing how they operate. That subsequently became a target for American businesses. So let's be clear, this is just a deliberate move to attack Main Street, mom and pop businesses. Because we know in her tenure, Lina Khan, she started speculative lawsuits against otherwise law-abiding companies, colluded with European regulators to undermine U.S. businesses, committed ethics violations on cases she would have otherwise been forced to recuse herself from, and embraced algorithm discrimination theories to stretch consumer protection authorities beyond the law. We cannot give this power to the next chair of the FTC, which we know will continue to be weaponized unless a departure is made. So the underlying bill already contains a strong enforceable standard. Platforms are liable if they have actual knowledge or if they willfully disregard that a user is a minor. Additionally, this section's preemption provision is narrowly written to specifically preempt what the bill is regulating and nothing more. A state still has the ability to enact laws and regulations that fall outside the specific issue that is being preempted and this was confirmed with the states in question that have been mentioned here today. Now further, I'm going to read this out loud so everyone in the room can be on the same page here. Nothing in subsection A may be construed to preempt the applicability of any law of a state with respect to trespass, contract, tort, or product liability, any statutory law that creates a remedy or penalty for criminal conduct, or any law of general applicability of a state with respect to consumer protection. This rule of construction is incredibly explicit. It directly preserves the ability for a parent to access the courts and protects ongoing lawsuits against social media and online gaming companies. I started out my remarks talking about the fingerprints of the trial bar on this amendment. You don't have to take my word for it, but we come with receipts. See, the very association that I just mentioned was in direct communication with the committee this week. This week. And if you don't believe that, then look no further than the talking points that they issued that became the actual legislative text that has been offered here today. They don't want us to legislate. They think that Congress needs to act to protect, they don't think that Congress should protect kids. They've told us that much because that's what their talking points say. They want the ability to make money. That's what this is about. With our language as written, we strike the balance of setting national safety standards and preserving a parent's ability to seek justice and hold Big Tech accountable. And I encourage all of my colleagues to reject this amendment and vote yes on the underlying bill. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield.

Gentlelady yields back. Further discussion of the amendment? Mr. Soto from Florida is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.

It's literally their talking points.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, this amendment is really the whole ballgame here. Right, we want to protect our kids. We want parents who are here today deserve, they deserve the truth. And the truth is that this bill falls woefully short. It's actually pretty outrageous to weaken standards with a straight face in this committee today. We don't need to lock the courthouse doors or make justice next to impossible. I know a lot of these different standards are very confusing, especially to a lot of the parents, non-lawyers in the room, and so I want to take a few minutes to go over them. Two main points. It will be next impossible for victims to prove actual knowledge in court. And preemption hurts stronger state laws. And as an aside, there were prior bills that included both of these that we all voted for last year in the subcommittee and, excuse me, last term in the subcommittee and now they're gone, right? So under this, you must show a social media site had actual knowledge of harm to kids, rather than the proper standard which is duty of care. That means you have to show a social media site knew that their algorithm or other practice was very addictive to kids or that it was causing depression or that they facilitated drug dealing or sexual, sex trafficking. The proper standard should be duty of care because a jury would understand it's either knew or should have known that these practices were harming kids. The victims would have to show a company specifically knew that that algorithm or that practice causes harm. Find the smoking gun, which rarely ever occurs. Some smoking gun email or a study or other evidence that they knew specifically. As I, as an attorney, I could tell you this rarely ever happens. With the duty of care standard, juries can use common sense. They can say, you know what, after thousands of kids have been hurt, perhaps they should have known that that practice, that algorithm, that addictive part of it was harmful. And maybe they should have done something about it. If this becomes law, we may never see victims' families prevail in court again. We may see some of these court cases that are already there because we heard a discussion about it continue to move forward, but anyone going forward after this, it makes it harder. And I'm not here to demonize tech companies, I'm not here to demonize trialers, which by the way, attorneys will be both defending all these families and also the companies. But if we make it harder with this bill, how could we in good faith support it? Briefly on point two. Preemption is tricky. States should have some discretion on greater protections. We just all talked about what we have in Florida. Social media ban for kids under 16, where parents can opt out their kids if they'd like to. This law has bipartisan support in Florida and has been upheld by the courts, including the 11th Circuit. And so we want to make sure we're getting these two areas right. That's why everybody came here today, to make sure we have justice. And so not only do the major issues matter, but the details matter to make sure that the court are, courthouse doors remain open, that we give victims some rights to be able to prosecute their cases, and to make sure that states have some role in this. And with that, that's why I think this is the amendment. This is the crossroads. This is where if we all vote for it, you could see a bipartisan bill out today, and if we don't, we still have a major divide that has to be bridged to get us back to the very bills we agreed on last term. And with that, I thank the gentlelady for, my fellow Floridian, for filing this very good amendment and I yield back.

Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion of the amendment? Further discussion of the amendment on either side? Seeing none. If there's no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. A roll call has been requested. Oh, that's a roll call has been requested and the clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Latta.

No.

Mr. Latta votes no. Mr. Griffith.

No.

Mr. Griffith votes no. Mr. Bilirakis.

No.

Mr. Bilirakis votes no. Mr. Hudson.

No.

Mr. Hudson votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia.

No.

Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Mr. Palmer.

No.

Mr. Palmer votes no. Mr. Dunn.

No.

Mr. Dunn votes no. Mr. Crenshaw.

No.

Mr. Crenshaw votes no. Mr. Joyce.

No.

Mr. Joyce votes no. Mr. Weber.

No.

Mr. Weber votes no. Mr. Allen.

No.

Mr. Allen votes no. Mr. Balderson.

No.

Mr. Balderson votes no. Mr. Fulcher.

No.

Mr. Fulcher votes no. Mr. Pfluger.

No.

Mr. Pfluger votes no. Mrs. Harshbarger.

No.

Mrs. Harshbarger votes no. Mrs. Miller-Meeks.

No.

Mrs. Miller-Meeks votes no. Mrs. Cammack.

No.

Mrs. Cammack votes no. Mr. Obernolte.

No.

Mr. Obernolte votes no. Mr. James.

No.

Mr. James votes no. Mr. Bentz.

No.

Mr. Bentz votes no. Mrs. Houchin.

No.

Mrs. Houchin votes no. Mr. Fry.

No.

Mr. Fry votes no. Ms. Lee.

No.

Ms. Lee votes no. Mr. Langworthy.

No.

Mr. Langworthy votes no. Mr. Kean.

No.

Mr. Kean votes no. Mr. Rulli.

No.

Mr. Rulli votes no. Mr. Evans.

No.

Mr. Evans votes no. Mr. Goldman.

No.

Mr. Goldman votes no. Mrs. Fedorchak.

No.

Mrs. Fedorchak votes no. Mr. Pallone.

Aye.

Mr. Pallone votes aye. Ms. DeGette.

Aye.

Ms. DeGette votes aye. Ms. Schakowsky.

Aye.

Ms. Schakowsky votes aye. Ms. Matsui.

Aye.

Ms. Matsui votes aye. Ms. Castor.

Aye.

Ms. Castor votes aye. Mr. Tonko.

Aye.

Mr. Tonko votes aye. Ms. Clarke.

Aye.

Ms. Clarke votes aye. Mr. Ruiz.

Aye.

Mr. Ruiz votes aye. Mr. Peters.

Aye.

Mr. Peters votes aye. Mrs. Dingell.

Aye.

Mrs. Dingell votes aye. Mr. Veasey.

Aye.

Mr. Veasey votes aye. Ms. Kelly.

Aye.

Ms. Kelly votes aye. Ms. Barragán.

Aye.

Ms. Barragán votes aye. Mr. Soto.

Aye.

Mr. Soto votes aye. Ms. Schrier.

Aye.

Ms. Schrier votes aye. Ms. Trahan.

Aye.

Ms. Trahan votes aye. Ms. Fletcher.

Aye.

Ms. Fletcher votes aye. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.

Aye.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye. Mr. Auchincloss.

Aye.

Mr. Auchincloss votes aye. Mr. Carter of Louisiana.

Aye.

Mr. Menendez.

Aye.

Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mr. Mullin.

Aye.

Mr. Mullin votes aye. Mr. Landsman.

Aye.

Mr. Landsman votes aye. Ms. McClellan.

Aye.

Ms. McClellan votes aye. Chairman Guthrie.

No.

Chairman Guthrie votes no. Mr. Hudson. Mr. Hudson's not recorded.

Votes no.

Mr. Hudson votes no.

Anyone else on the Republican side seeking to answer to the roll? Anyone on the Democrat side? The roll is, so seeing none, the clerk will report. Oh, Mrs. Carter. I'm sorry, Mr. Carter. How's Mr. Carter recorded?

Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes aye.

The clerk will report the result.

Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there were 20, excuse me, 24 ayes and 27 nos.

The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments to the bill? Mr. Landsman, you're recognized for, Mr. Landsman, for what purpose you seek recognition?

I have an amendment at the desk.

Identify the amendment.

071.

The clerk will report.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 7757 offered by Mr. Landsman.

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman from Ohio is almost at Kentucky, Ohio is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me before I mention the amendment, I just want to thank all the parents for being here. This isn't easy. I can't possibly imagine the grief and pain that you're going through and the amount of work that you put into it and I wish we had a better outcome today. This amendment would get us to a better outcome, but I just want to say thank you for being here and for working on this. My wife Sarah and I have two kids, our son Elijah's 14, our daughter Maddie is 16. And a couple of weeks ago, it was a Saturday or Sunday, they were bored and they wanted to go to a place called Activate. And I didn't know what it was, looked it up, it's this in-person sort of gaming facility, interactive technology. It was a little expensive, but it was 90 minutes and they really wanted to go and they wanted their friends to go with them. And so I took a bunch of, you know, these 14, 15, 16-year-old kids to this place. And as you know, when you get to a place like this, you got a lot of paperwork to fill out. You know, they got to know everyone's age, a lot of forms. Fill out all the forms. If something bad were to happen, God forbid, I could sue Activate. Pretty straightforward. I didn't think twice about whether or not Ohio laws applied. I assume all the Ohio laws applied. And so I was just thinking about that in the context of this bill and wondering why we treat big tech different than we treat small businesses. Why, why would we treat big tech any differently than small businesses? So this amendment fixes the knowledge standard so that big tech has to actually have knowledge that there are young people, kids on their platforms. They can't deny it. Changes the duty of care so that we can litigate, so parents can take big tech, these platforms to court. That's it. Yes, the lawyers have been involved. The lawyers all around this country want to be able to help parents take these firms to court. And three, it deals with the issue of preemption so that state laws prevail. Period. Not in some instances, but across the board. This amendment protects our kids, not big tech. So with that, I encourage all my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for five minutes to speak on the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it very much. I seek recognition to speak in opposition to the amendment. Okay, this amendment introduces a vague constructive knowledge standard that will act as a blank check for regulatory abuse by future partisan FTC. And you know, we see that, we saw that in the last term. A constructive knowledge standard based on what a regulator thinks is fairly implied based on objective circumstances is an invitation to play gotcha with otherwise law-abiding companies. So the underlying bill already contains a strong enforceable standard. Platforms are liable if they have actual knowledge or if they willfully disregard that a user is a minor. So the underlying bill punishes bad actors who intentionally look away without opening the door to federal overreach, in my opinion. This amendment also adds anti-preemption language that is directly from the Senate KOSSA bill. The underlying preemption language already is, and I, this is what it says, conflicts with preemption, which means that the only laws that are state laws that, in other words, if it's a state law that directly conflicts with the federal law, then the, that particular law will be preempted. The underlying bill has the same preemption language that the minority insisted on during negotiations, and I happen to agree with them, and now they are moving the goalposts. It's plain and simple. The Constitution provides that federal laws can trump state laws, including laws that conflict with federal law, and adopting this upends constitutional responsibilities. So it's pretty clear, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Further discussion on the amendment? Gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.

I yield to my colleague from Ohio.

Thank you. Thank you, Rob. The whole thing comes down to whether or not you can sue these companies. I mean, there's only so much that policy can achieve. Obviously, as lawmakers, we hope that our policy is spot on and it's foolproof and it covers all eventualities, but that's not the way it works. Typically, you know, we get justice and things get fixed because people can take somebody to court. That's it. And there are two big groups in this country that have protections, that have these litigation shields, even though they've caused enormous damage to our children. Big Tech and gun manufacturers. Why, why can't I sue either one of them? I just don't understand. I really don't, other than the money. Anyway, I pass this amendment, help these families sue these Big Tech companies and that, that's going to lead to the change. Congressman, I don't know if I can yield, I'm going to yield back to Mr. Menendez and then...

Would you mind yielding for just...

Yeah.

I just want to add to the Congressman from Ohio's point about the two industries that can't be sued, just, just the third one, which is the drug pricing middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers. Three industries have come to Congress in the last 25 years and asked to be held harmless: gun manufacturers, social media corporations, and the big insurance corporations that rent-seek off of high drug prices. If that's not a lesson for us in Congress, I don't know what is. Maybe we should stop doing that, and when industries come to Congress and say, hey, we don't want to be sued, our answer shouldn't be, sure, yeah, how can we help? Our answer should be like, well, what are you doing that people keep on suing you so much? And maybe work on that for a while. I yield back.

Actually, and I would... Oh, sorry.

It's the gentleman from New Jersey's time, so do you yield to...

I yield to my colleague from Virginia.

Thank you. I just want to really quickly point out, I think it's the height of insanity to say to companies that develop platforms and services and algorithms that are addictive to children, that are intentionally addictive to children, that there's evidence that they're addictive to children, to now say that they should not be held to a standard that they should reasonably know that children will be addicted to the services and platforms and products that they intended for them to become addicted to and will continue to use them and therefore should be shielded with an actual knowledge standard. To me, that is the height of insanity. I yield back.

And would the gentleman from New Jersey...

I yield to my colleague from New York.

Oh, we just started over. I think there was two minutes left. We'll give it two minutes left, so yeah, go ahead. You're recognized.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, and I'm happy to yield back my time as well. But you know, I think this is a, what is kind of being revealed here and what all of the points that we're making here is that this is about how Congress and Congress's willingness to take on big industries and some of the biggest and most nefarious industries that have preyed on the American people and everyday working families. They don't have big money lobbyists. But Big Social Media companies do, Big Tech does, Big Pharma does, Big Oil does, and Big Tobacco does. And Big Tobacco was one of the first mega-predatory industries that wrote the playbook on how to dupe Congress and to also perpetuate PR campaigns to actually trick the American people as well. I mean, we all can remember times, and it's in our history books, that Big Tobacco had originally convinced the American people that they were, that smoking cigarettes was healthy for you. They suppressed science, they suppressed evidence, and then they lobbied Congress to prevent any sort of regulation. And millions of Americans were diagnosed with cancer and got sick, and we found out decades after the fact how dangerous this was. Big Oil did the same thing when we found out that burning fossil fuels contributed to carbon emissions back in the 1970s. Exxon's internal scientists determined this, and then they set out to bury that science and evidence. We're seeing this with, with opioids and opioid manufacturers that preyed on the American people understanding and knowing how addictive their substances was. And now we're seeing this with social media and Big Tech. We're seeing the crisis that's happening here with kids losing their lives and people using, losing cognitive function increasingly in use of social media tools and other digital tools as well. So we have to stand up and say we see right through them and that we're willing to stand up to big money behind this as well. And I yield back.

Thank you. Gentleman from New Jersey exhausted all your time, so gentleman yields back. So thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none. If there's no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. A roll call has been requested and the clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Latta. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Hudson. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Mr. Palmer. Mr. Dunn. Mr. Crenshaw. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce votes no. Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber votes no. Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen votes no. Mr. Balderson. Mr. Balderson votes no. Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Fulcher votes no. Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Pfluger votes no. Mrs. Harshbarger. Mrs. Harshbarger votes no. Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Mrs. Miller-Meeks votes no. Mrs. Cammack. Mrs. Cammack votes no. Mr. Obernolte. Mr. Obernolte votes no. Mr. James. Mr. James votes no. Mr. Bentz. Mr. Bentz votes no. Mrs. Houchin. Mrs. Houchin votes no. Mr. Fry. Mr. Fry votes no. Miss Lee. Miss Lee votes no. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy votes no. Mr. Kane. Mr. Kane votes no. Mr. Rulli. Mr. Rulli. Mr. Rulli votes no. Mr. Evans. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes no. Mrs. Fedorchak. Mrs. Fedorchak votes no. Mr. Pallone. Mr. Pallone votes aye. Ms. DeGette. Ms. DeGette votes aye. 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. Clark. Ms. Clark. Ms. Clark votes aye. Mr. Ruiz. Mr. Ruiz votes aye. Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters votes aye. Mrs. Dingell. Mr. Veasey.

Aye.

Mrs. Dingell votes aye. Mr. Veasey.

Aye.

Mr. Veasey votes aye. Ms. Kelly.

Aye.

Ms. Kelly votes aye. Ms. Barragán.

Aye.

Ms. Barragán votes aye. Mr. Soto.

Aye.

Mr. Soto votes aye. Ms. Schrier.

Aye.

Ms. Schrier votes aye. Ms. Trahan.

Aye.

Ms. Trahan votes aye. Ms. Fletcher.

Aye.

Ms. Fletcher votes aye. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.

Aye.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye. Mr. Auchincloss.

Aye.

Mr. Auchincloss votes aye. Mr. Carter of Louisiana.

Aye.

Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Menendez.

Aye.

Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mr. Mullin.

Aye.

Mr. Mullin votes aye. Mr. Landsman.

Aye.

Mr. Landsman votes aye. Ms. McClellan.

Aye.

Ms. McClellan votes aye. Chairman Guthrie.

No.

Chairman Guthrie votes no.

Mr. Latta.

Mr. Latta is not recorded.

No.

Mr. Latta votes no.

Mr. Hudson.

Mr. Hudson votes no.

Mr. Hudson votes no.

Mr. Palmer.

Mr. Palmer is not recorded.

Nick is...

No.

Mr. Palmer votes no.

Bilirakis.

Mr. Bilirakis is not recorded.

Mr. Bilirakis.

No.

Mr. Bilirakis votes no.

Mr. Evans.

Mr. Evans is not recorded.

No.

Mr. Evans votes no.

Your side, everybody good here? I want to give everybody a chance to get in. Anyone seeking to answer the roll call? Seeing none, the clerk will report.

Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there were 24 ayes and 27 nos.

The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? The gentleman from Florida, for what purpose do you seek recognition?

For an amendment.

For an amendment.

Identify your amendment. Will you identify your amendment?

KNOW_01.

K-N-O-W underscore 01 underscore.

The clerk will report.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.

Without objection, reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman from Florida is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We had a deal on the Safer Gaming Act in the subcommittee. I filed an amendment that was agreed to at the time. The Safer Gaming Act amendment created parental controls for the chat features on online interactive video games. Kids under 16 would be opted into the most protective level of communications safeguards by default. The default restrictive safeguards can only be changed by a parent. We see especially a lot of our our boys and young men playing games and yes, some of the ladies too. And we know this is a area where they're vulnerable. And now that deal has been broken in this current version of that amendment was taken out. Just a little more background, our amendment made improvements to the state preemption language in the original bill with the intention to continue negotiations to further improve the language. The majority made the preemption language worse when they rolled Safer Gaming into the kids' package. Our amendment strikes that state preemption language and replaces that standard with a standard that protects and sets it as a floor rather than a ceiling. I do want to thank Mr. Kean for working with me in the subcommittee on this and I'm hoping we can keep the deal and pass this amendment. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from Florida is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am speaking in opposition to this amendment and I do want to thank my... it's the Floridians, man, we're we're all over the place. Representative Soto, I appreciate all the work that you and I do together. In fact, most of the work on this committee tends to be bipartisan, but I am I am absolutely struck by the fact that this amendment, the previous amendment, and subsequent amendments that are slated are quite literally identical. The language is identical to the word. I just I have to point that out because we keep doing this round robin and I mean you can pull every single one of these amendments and there is not even a deviation of a single word, they all say the exact same thing. And again, I believe everyone on this dais, everyone, Republicans and Democrats, all are looking for the same thing. We want to empower parents, we want to keep kids safe. I am the new mom to a little girl who is six months old and I am terrified for her future. I am terrified for what she is going to encounter. But going about it where special interest is trying to influence these outcomes is ridiculous. I can speak to the fact that Representative Trahan, Representative Soto and I, we we are squarely in the crosshairs of Big Tech because we are willing to take on that fight. This is is such a personal issue to so many, including people in our audience. But who else is in the audience? Trial attorneys. You know who you are. You know who you are in this audience. Don't for one second think that you are not going to skate by without being pointed out that you make money off of these lawsuits and that you didn't draft these amendments and the talking points are quite literally what we're hearing from the other side. This should be about how do we advance this? How do we advance this to make this safe for kids and empower parents? All I'm hearing is the same amendment over and over and over, which has been drafted by the trial attorneys. And it seems like it's just it's not productive. So I think I think of course we will see our colleagues continue to offer these, it's the same language over and over and over again and it will have the same result. I personally would love for us to advance this bill so we can actually begin the hard work of protecting kids and empowering parents. And I love that the trial attorney, there's some trial attorneys that are shaking their heads, but and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield.

Gentlelady yields back. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Barragán, is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just feel the need to respond to the attack on trial lawyers. I have to say I was never a trial lawyer, I couldn't afford it because I had too much debt when I came out of law school. But I see trial lawyers as those fighting for the little people, especially when Congress won't do its job to fight for the little people. So to come out here and attack trial lawyers, basically lawyers who are willing to represent parents and children against big corporations is is quite fascinating, but quite sad as well. Lawyers play a vital role in this country to fight for people and many times it's the little person, the person who can't afford a lawyer. And so I don't know what the Congresswoman's constituents do when they can't afford lawyer and some corporation has done some wrong. I have no idea who they go to, but those are plaintiffs' trial lawyers. So I just find it quite disturbing that a member of Congress would attack those that are fighting for the little people and those that are fighting in this instance today for parents and for kids. And with that, I yield.

Will the gentlelady yield?

Yes.

Thank you. And in addition to my friend, the reason why you keep hearing the same language from us is because it's the law. It's the it's the Supreme Court decisions, it's the way that law is interpreted. And what we're worried about is the language of this bill will allow these companies to circumvent the ability of, as Ms. Barragán says, of the little guy, of the of the parents of these kids to be able to file and and pursue lawsuits. And you know, sorry that we keep all talking about the law, but it's the law and that's why we're talking about it. I yield back.

Thank you, I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Is there any discussion on the Republican... the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Fletcher, is recognized for five minutes.

Great, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate the comments from my fellow lawyers on the panel and they stepped in to say some of the things that I wanted to say when I initially raised my hand. But I do think it's a point that we need to remember in this committee because, you know, Ms. Cammack was asking the questions about, you know, why are the why are the trial lawyers so involved? And I think it's really important for us to remember that in our system, we can either regulate everything or we can regulate nothing and try everything and have liability in the courts. But we have a hybrid system where we try to regulate, but the message from the Republicans is we want fewer regulations, we don't want government regulating. So the lawyers step in to say these things are causing harm, right? Whether you're looking at train accidents 100 years ago, we all had to read that case in law school, you know, people getting hit by trains and on and on to require safety. That's something we do on this committee, consumer protection, consumer product safety. So many of the things that we've learned are harmful to people in this country we've learned not because we've regulated it first, but because citizens have been injured, have been hurt, and lawyers have come along and those cases get tried in court. And so we have this hybrid system. There are roles for regulation here, but what I hear over and over from the other side is less regulation. Okay, well then there should be more lawyers. Like that's the answer to less regulation is we want to protect citizens, we want to protect consumers, we want to have some way to address the harms happening in this country. And so we do both, right? And and the thing is I totally agree with Congresswoman Barragán that, you know, what you see there are a bunch of different kinds of ways to practice law and to be a lawyer. But there are a lot of lawyers who raise their hands to help people who cannot afford to pay them, right? People who've been injured, but, you know, in in my law firm where I used to work, the lawyers charge $1,000 an hour. I don't know how ordinary people can pay for that when they've been harmed. And so you need to have people who are willing to take the risk and represent people for free for years sometimes at a time and then eventually they do get paid unless they don't win it and then they often don't get paid anything. So as we're criticizing these people, we need to... well, I'm not criticizing. As criticisms are being lodged against the trial lawyers, I just think it's really important to understand the fundamental system that we're operating in and the important role of lawyers in our society. And look, I'm on a roll so I'm just going to say this too. We need lawyers now more than ever because what we are seeing happening in this country every single day is an outright assault on the Constitution of the United States of America by the President of the United States and this cabinet that is acting lawlessly and without authority. We're about to go to the floor and vote on a War Powers Resolution, but every single day we see the President ignoring the Congress, the administration ignoring the Congress, ignoring laws that have been set in place and this Congress doing nothing about it. We're going to the floor to vote on showerheads and toilet capacity and all of these ridiculous rollbacks of of appliance standards that come out of this committee instead of talking about the fact that agents of the United States government acting at our in our names and with taxpayer dollars are killing American citizens in the streets. You're laughing, you're looking at me, you're smiling, you think it's ridiculous. People are being killed in the United States of America and they're being killed by agents of our government and we have not talked about it on the House floor. What is wrong with this Congress? Why doesn't anyone want to talk about that? There is an an incredible amount of lawlessness that is happening right now. And Speaker Johnson says, we're not going to require ICE to follow the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We're not going to require warrants to enter your home, to seize your car, right? This is the Constitution of the United States. This is the law, and it is being ignored by this administration and by this Congress. And so we need lawyers today, now more than ever. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. The chair recognizes Mr. Weber from Texas for five minutes to speak on the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to Lizzie Fletcher from Houston, I want to say thank you for being very, very impassioned about this. Earth to Lizzie, thank you for being very passionate about this. I have a son that's a plaintiff's attorney. We have one in the room here that I served with in the Texas House, Mr. Craig Eiland. Thank you for being here, Mr. Eiland. And I was concerned about this bill when we started because I didn't want to see it take a cause of action away when we started, but they assured me it would not. And so you make a good case in some fashion, but I think you got a little broad there, lady. But listen, I appreciate your consideration. I appreciate your passion. And I want to just say that we do need to be able to have causes of action and people that are going to be hurt. This is what lawyers do. I have a son that's one, if I didn't mention that, just kidding. Anyway, I appreciate you and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Further discussion? Mr. Carter from Louisiana had, you're recognized for five minutes.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I listen to my colleague from Florida demonize trial lawyers, demonize advocates, demonize people who step up and stand up to defend people against Big Tech, against big organizations and corporate entities who have unlimited resources. But somehow you find a way to demonize the defense, those who stand up to advocate for. Trial lawyers go to court to defend people's rights, to address issues that they have been harmed by. What's wrong with that? Are you suggesting that somehow they should singularly go against Big Tech by themselves and be further harmed by the giants that seem to fuel your argument? To suggest that members on this side can't draft an amendment, that someone else has to do it for them, that's disrespectful. It's disingenuous. It's dangerous. It's reckless. It's an insult to the men and women sitting in this audience who are in pain, who are aggrieved because of their losses. And now you suggest that they shouldn't have a lawyer to defend them. You suggest that somehow their concerns are not meritorious of proper counsel. Find another argument. Find another argument to support the reckless nature of the exclusions of solid solutions, the exclusions of the voices of the people that have been harmed. Let's not play politics with this. Let's not make this an argument against trial lawyers or this one or that one. Let's stay focused on what this is about. This is about our young people. This is about Big Tech who wants to take advantage of our young people. Let's not cloud the issue with arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter at hand. Please. Let's stay focused. Let's stay in check. Let's get our minds right on why we are here. Look at these people in the audience. Look at the pain on their faces. Let's come together as I believe, I really believe, both sides wants to do. But somewhere along the line, you've lost your way. And now you attempt to defend that departure from truth and justice by trying to malign trial lawyers. Give me a break. People are smarter than this and the public deserves better. I yield.

Gentleman yields back. If there's no further discussion, oh there is further discussion. Gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to correct the record. The amendment that was offered by the gentleman from Florida does not actually reflect our bipartisan work on the Safer Gaming Act. In fact, it changes both the preemption and the knowledge standard. I continue being happy and willing to work with the gentleman from Florida on future amendments to this particular provision of the bill. Thank you again. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. If there's no further, there is further discussion. Gentlelady from Florida. Every Floridian's going to speak today, right? You're recognized.

Yeah, because let's talk about, let's talk about the big picture here. How do we enforce meaningful laws right now? So we've known about the growing harm to kids for many years. We've had so many hearings. We've drafted legislation. The Congress has not enacted any of these laws. I mean, it was COPPA was adopted 25, 26 years ago and we haven't really done much since then. So families can't count on the Congress and it sounds like today the House Republican leadership, they're not willing to get back to the bipartisan bills, but we're going to keep trying there. At the same time, you know, the Federal Trade Commission has important enforcement responsibilities, but they have been under attack. So the FTC enforcement of laws will be less dependable. So you won't be able to, parents won't be able to depend on that. So they rely on state laws because thankfully many states have acted on age-appropriate design codes and going after privacy violations. But what you're going to do here is you're going to make it harder for states to take the lead. You're going to slam the courthouse door shut when they have certain state private rights of action in a lot of cases. So now you're going to defend slamming that door to the courthouse shut for families here too. So there's not going to be any recourse anywhere. They can't rely on the Congress. You don't want the states to be able to do anything. You don't want the FTC to be able to do anything. You don't want them to be able to bring private rights of action. This is kind of what Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said at the very beginning. This is one of the most cynical ways that Washington operates. Or what Mr. Auchincloss said, this is kind of the meta markup. This is what they want. There are a lot of very important lawsuits going on right now by school districts, by states, not just families. And you're going to pull the rug out from under them, understanding the harm. So you give lip service, we feel your pain, we feel your pain, we want to do something. And then you end the ability of anyone to seek justice in America. So I think this argument has kind of, it's shined a light on what this is all about here today. This is the protection of the social media platforms' profits. You value the profits of those companies more than the recourse for families or doing something to protect kids, their safety and their privacy. That's, you've made it plain now. I yield back my time.

Gentlelady yields back. Any further discussion? I'll just recognize myself for five minutes on the amendment. Remember the amendment that, well I'll probably, I've already spoken on it, I'm sorry. Would gentleman from Georgia seek, you're recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll yield my time. Gentleman, I was just going to do a 30-second, I just want to read, it says, every preemption section in the entire bill, quote from the bill, from the amendment. So I know we were talking on the bill earlier. Nothing in subsection A may be construed to preempt the applicability of any law of a state with respect to trespass, contract, tort, or product liability, any statutory law that creates a remedy or penalty for criminal conduct, or any law of general applicability of a state with respect to consumer protection. My state's involved in the Roblox lawsuit. I talked to our Attorney General's, or we talked to the Attorney General's office today, I didn't personal, correct that, and they said this does not enhance, inhibit them from going forward. So I will yield back. Is there further discussion? Oh, the gentleman from Ohio yields back. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none. Seeing none. If there's no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment in the nature, well not, occurs on the amendment. A roll call has been requested and the clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Latta. No. Mr. Latta votes no. Mr. Griffith. No. Mr. Bilirakis. Bilirakis votes no. Mr. Bilirakis votes no. Mr. Hudson. No. Mr. Hudson votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia. No. Mr. Palmer. Palmer votes no. Mr. Palmer votes no. Mr. Dunn. Mr. Crenshaw. Mr. Joyce. No. Mr. Joyce votes no. Mr. Weber. No. Mr. Weber votes no. Mr. Allen. No. Mr. Allen votes no. Mr. Balderson. No. Mr. Balderson votes no. Mr. Fulcher. No. Mr. Fulcher votes no. Mr. Pfluger. No. Mr. Pfluger votes no. Mrs. Harshbarger. No. Mrs. Harshbarger votes no. Mrs. Miller-Meeks. No. Mrs. Cammack. No. Mrs. Cammack votes no. Mr. Obernolte. Mr. James. No. Mr. James votes no. Mr. Bentz. No. Mr. Bentz votes no. Mrs. Houchin. No. Mrs. Houchin votes no. Mr. Fry. No. Mr. Fry votes no. Ms. Lee. No. Ms. Lee votes no. Mr. Langworthy. No. Mr. Langworthy votes no. Mr. Kean. No. Mr. Kean votes no. Mr. Rulli. No. Mr. Rulli votes no. Mr. Evans. No. Mr. Goldman. No. Mr. Goldman votes no. Mrs. Fedorchak. No. Mrs. Fedorchak votes no. Mr. Pallone. Aye. Mr. Pallone votes aye. Ms. DeGette. Aye. Ms. DeGette votes aye. Ms. Schakowsky. Aye. Ms. Schakowsky votes aye. Ms. Matsui. Aye. Ms. Matsui votes aye. Ms. Castor. Aye. Ms. Castor votes aye. Mr. Tonko. Aye. Mr. Tonko votes aye. Ms. Clarke. Aye. Ms. Clarke votes aye. Mr. Ruiz. Aye. Mr. Peters. Aye. Mr. Peters votes aye. Mrs. Dingell. Aye. Mrs. Dingell votes aye. Mr. Veasey. Aye. Mr. Veasey votes aye. Ms. Kelly. Aye. Ms. Kelly votes aye. Ms. Barragán. Aye. Ms. Barragán votes aye. Mr. Soto. Aye, with reservations. Mr. Soto votes aye. Ms. Schrier. Aye. Ms. Schrier votes aye. Ms. Trahan. Aye. Ms. Trahan votes aye. Ms. Fletcher.

Aye.

Ms. Fletcher votes aye. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.

Aye.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye. Mr. Auchincloss.

Aye.

Mr. Auchincloss votes aye. Mr. Carter of Louisiana.

Aye.

Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Menendez.

Aye.

Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mr. Mullin.

Aye.

Mr. Mullin votes aye. Mr. Landsman.

Aye.

Mr. Landsman votes aye. Ms. McClellan.

Aye.

Ms. McClellan votes aye. Chairman Guthrie.

No.

Chairman Guthrie votes no.

Is anybody... Obernolte's first. Let me go... No, I want it. So Mr. Carter, how's Mr. Carter recorded?

Mr. Carter of Georgia is not recorded.

Mr. Carter votes no.

Before I call on the next one, Menendez votes no. Mr. Dunn is here. I think some of us have heard that he was really, really sick the last few days. Actually got a phone call wondering if he was still here. And we're pleased to say that he's got treatment that he needs, and we expect to see him for the rest of the year. So thank welcome back. [Applause.]

You're very kind, Mr. Chairman.

And I just want... I don't want to cause any conspiracy, but you're not your brother, correct? He has an identical brother that I met one time.

And I vote no.

How does Mr. Dunn recorded?

Mr. Dunn is not recorded.

No.

Mr. Dunn votes no.

Thank you. Great to have you back. Anybody on... Mr. Obernolte? Okay.

Mr. Obernolte is not recorded.

No.

Mr. Obernolte votes no.

Anyone else on the... Mr. Ruiz, Dr. Ruiz, how's he recorded?

Dr. Ruiz is not recorded.

Yes.

Mr. Ruiz votes aye.

Clerk will report.

Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there were 24 ayes and 26 nos.

The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? Gentlelady from California, for what purpose do you seek recognition?

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Identify your amendment.

Matsui 041.

The clerk will report.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7757, offered by Ms. Matsui of California. Page five, beginning on line seven, strike to have acted in willful disregard.

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady from California is recognized for five minutes in support of her amendment.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. But first of all, I want to thank the parents for being here on behalf of their children and the children of others too who have been hurt. And I just want you to know that the reason we want to improve this bill is for all of you. We keep you at the very center because you are here. We see you, and we know what you're going through, and we want to make sure that others do not have to go through what you've been through. So thank you very much for being patient and being here. Thank you. This amendment does two common sense things to strengthen the KIDS Act. First, it fixes the bill's weak knowledge standard so companies can't dodge responsibility by claiming they didn't know the user was a child. Second, it fixes the SAFE BOTS preemption language to clearly set a federal floor, not a ceiling, especially as AI companion chatbots become more commonplace. Let me be blunt. Instead of doing the hard work to reach real bipartisan agreement, Republicans keep rushing weak standards and broad preemption through committee, and kids are the ones who pay the price. Let's start with the knowledge standard. The bill currently tells companies, do the bare minimum on kids' safety, profit from hooking kids on your app, and when harm occurs, just say you didn't know you were dealing with a child. As written, the bill would make it nearly impossible for parents and kids to hold the company accountable. Instead of asking what the company reasonably should have known, the law would force families to prove what the company actually knew, using confusing and slippery standards. And the army of lawyers employed by corporations would do everything they can to exploit that loophole to avoid accountability. Platforms can't have it both ways. They collect mountains of data to predict what you'll watch next and how to keep you on the app longer. That same data gives them clear signals about age. If they're using data to make money off young users, they should also be required to use it to create meaningful protections for young users. My amendment strengthens this bill by moving us away from loopholes and toward real enforceable protections for children. Now let me turn to SAFE BOTS and preemption. If we're serious about protecting kids online, we can't tie the hands of states and local communities. Our federal system is designed so states can serve as laboratories of democracy, especially when new risks emerge faster than Congress can act. And nothing is moving faster right now than AI. We are entering a new era of AI companion chatbots that kids can access in seconds, often with few safeguards. States like California are already doing more than SAFE BOTS. California's SB 243 covers the same ground and goes further with a private right of action so families aren't left powerless. As written, SAFE BOTS would preempt states, block these and future stronger protections for kids. My amendment makes it clear this should be the federal floor for safety. States should be free to do more when emerging harms show up in their communities and corporations fail to act responsibly. Right now in California, landmark cases could finally reveal what these companies knew about the damage their platforms were doing to kids. How instead of fixing it, they doubled down on designs that keep kids scrolling and coming back for more. We shouldn't hand out the biggest tech platforms a get out of jail free card right as accountability is finally coming into view. We need to be honest about what the future looks like. The harms keep evolving. Just look at AI toys embedded with companion chatbots being marketed to children with little to no safeguards. Congress has been far too slow to respond to kids' safety in the social media era. Now we're entering a new era with AI layered on top of it. That's why broad preemption is so dangerous. If we block states from acting, who knows how long it'll take Congress to catch up to the next wave of harms. So I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. Let's pass stronger protections for kids, not weaker accountability for big tech. Let's set a federal floor, not a federal ceiling. And let's keep states in the fight for kids. With that, I yield back.

The gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. Is there further discussion? For what purpose does the gentlelady from Tennessee's first district seek recognition?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I seek recognition to speak in opposition to the amendment.

The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes to speak in opposition to the amendment.

Thank you, sir. This amendment does exactly the same thing that Mr. Landsman's amendment does, but in a different section. And you know, the underlying bill already contains a strong enforceable standard. And again, it's the same preemption language that the minority agreed to in the past. But why don't we talk about the policy in the KIDS Act? Should kids be misguided thinking that the chatbot they're talking to is a real person? Should they? No. How about if a 12-year-old is able to receive a private message from a stranger, is that okay? No, it's not okay. Should big tech be conducting market research on sixth graders? No. And again and again, it's because the Trial Lawyer Association opposes the bill. To be clear, the preemption standards in place are even weaker than those for motor vehicle ads. When you're going down the highway, there's no lack of signs for trial lawyers on the side of the highway. Have you been in an accident? We've all seen them. You know, it's ridiculous that the colleagues on the other side are voting against this package. They're pretending it's for parents, but really it's because they want to delay any legislation that goes against big tech at the expense of your and my children. It's not right. And if you go back to Chairman Guthrie's amendment, all of the product liability and tort lawsuits will still be considered in court. So with that, I vote... I'm going to be voting no on the amendment, and I ask my colleagues to do the same. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

The gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion? For what purpose does the gentleman from New Jersey seek recognition?

To speak on the amendment.

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.

I think it's absurd to say that our opposition to this package is because we want to delay any legislation that takes on big tech. You want to take on big tech, do more than what's in this proposed bill. Stand taller, fight harder for families. Have a duty of care standard. Don't weaken it. You say you want to fight, fight harder. Fight harder for these families right here. They're looking at you. They've been here all day. Don't tell us we don't want to take on big tech. I won't be lectured by a Republican majority that in the one big beautiful bill wanted to have a 10-year moratorium on AI state legislation without doing anything here at the federal level. Don't lecture us that we don't want to take on big tech. It's absurd. We're here. We're ready. Look at what our colleagues have said the entire hearing. We're ready to do the work. We'll join you hand in hand on meaningful real legislation that we've been able to do on a bipartisan basis previously. So we're here, and we've shown time and time again we will operate in good faith. We tried on this bill. We tried on other bills. But you walk away from that bipartisanship to push this forward, and there's no way to say that the things that we support wouldn't be a harder sell to big tech. It wouldn't go harder against big tech. That's what we want to do. We're on the side of the American people. You guys are on the side of corporate interests. I yield back.

The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? For what purpose does the gentleman from New York seek recognition?

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

The gentleman is recognized to strike the last word for five minutes.

Like my colleagues before me, I want to acknowledge the families here today and those that have come to my office to share their stories. Your pain and loss are impossible to ever fully comprehend. And your tragic experience should compel us to promote the strongest effort that we can, and that being the bipartisan bill mentioned earlier here today, done in a previous time in this committee. That would be showing the fullest respect and fullest response to this issue. And I apologize that we are failing you, that the burden to advocate year after year has fallen to you. But I oppose this measure as it's currently presented, and primarily because of concerns of preemption and duty of care. The risk of social media continues to grow more urgent by the day, but we have failed to meet the moment. In fact, it's done the opposite. Instead of leading, this administration and my Republican colleagues are bowing to please big tech to enact weak policy that will preempt stronger state efforts. In my home state of New York, lawmakers have introduced and passed bills that recognize the urgent threat of unregulated social media. These actions include taking on companies that are designing for addiction, that are collecting and selling data of children and adults. And state action is not a roadblock to progress. It is actually the driver of progress. That's how we got clean air laws and privacy protection and civil rights. So strong regulation is not about stifling competition. It is about safeguarding communities from harms that the families in the audience today have shared over and over and over during the past few years. The time has come to do the most appropriate moral response, and that is to get that bipartisan bill back into this committee. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.

Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. For what purpose does the gentlelady from Iowa's first district seek recognition?

I'd like to speak on the amendment.

The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes to speak to the amendment.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I think it's interesting as we go through this and we look at all of the bills that are compiled today in the KIDS Act, and we look at the faces here at this hearing that we're going to have had four years of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle could have advanced legislation to their liking, but yet nothing has been done. And we've continued to see through COVID children suffering, children being preyed upon on social media. It's why it was so important for me, even though I don't have young kids at home, but have family members with young children, seeing them go through this trying to protect their children against behemoths, that I introduced this Spy KIDS Act. Protecting children and teens online is one of the most urgent responsibilities we face as policymakers. Parents can't do this alone. You can't. No matter how involved you are, no matter how attentive you are, you cannot do it alone. As digital platforms become central to how young people learn, communicate, and navigate the world, and most importantly, they trust them, we must ensure that these spaces are safe, transparent, and designed with their well-being, not corporate profit, as the driving priority. My bill, the Spy KIDS Act, included in Title II of the KIDS Act, takes an important step toward that goal by prohibiting online platforms from conducting market or focus product-focused research on children under 13 and by requiring verifiable parental consent before such research can be conducted on teenagers. This bill applies to user-generated content platforms that use engagement-driven design features and personal data to tailor ads or recommendations, such as social media companies and social gaming platforms. Prior to coming to Congress, I saw members of Congress debate more on colored cereal and the effect on children than the effect of social media, which may end a child's life. Colored and flavored cereal never caused a child to commit suicide. By limiting how platforms can analyze and monetize minors' data, the Spy KIDS Act helps reduce the risk of manipulative marketing practices, strengthens privacy protections, and reinforces the principle that the well-being of America's youth must come before the business models of technology companies. Our goal is simple: to build an online ecosystem where children can grow, learn, and connect without being exploited in the process. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield.

Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. For what purpose does the gentlelady from California... Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. For what purpose is the gentlelady from California seek recognition?

I move to strike the last word.

The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes to strike the last word.

I just I just have to keep correcting the record when my colleagues across the aisle misguide and provide misinformation. Democrats did work in a bipartisan manner in 2024 on a pack on the Kids Online Safety Bill, and the Senate passed it overwhelmingly 91 to three. So to suggest that we have not discussed this issue and nothing has been done in four years is not true. And this committee again voted by voice vote to pass that legislation. One of the problems with this package is it adds in all these other things, maybe to get the votes from Republicans who maybe would not vote for it, I don't know. And some of those bills are probably good bills, but when you package those with a bill that was bipartisan that's been gutted, that takes away protections for parents and and kids, we can't support it. So I would just recommend that you take out those bills and we vote on those bills separately and go back to the drawing board on the Kids Online Safety Bill. With that, I yield back.

Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? The a roll call is asked and the clerk will call or take the roll, please.

Mr. Latta.

No.

Mr. Latta votes no. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Bilirakis.

No.

Mr. Bilirakis votes no. Mr. Hudson.

No.

Mr. Hudson votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia.

No.

Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Mr. Palmer.

No.

Mr. Palmer votes no. Mr. Dunn.

No.

Mr. Dunn votes no. Mr. Crenshaw. Mr. Joyce.

No.

Mr. Joyce votes no. Mr. Weber.

No.

Mr. Weber votes no. Mr. Allen.

No.

Mr. Allen votes no. Mr. Balderson.

No.

Mr. Balderson votes no. Mr. Fulcher.

No.

Mr. Fulcher votes no. Mr. Pfluger. Mrs. Harshbarger.

No.

Mrs. Harshbarger votes no. Mrs. Miller-Meeks.

No.

Mrs. Miller-Meeks votes no. Mrs. Cammack.

No.

Mrs. Cammack votes no. Mr. Obernolte.

No.

Mr. Obernolte votes no. Mr. James. Mr. Bentz.

No.

Mr. Bentz votes no. Mrs. Houchin.

No.

Mrs. Houchin votes no. Mr. Fry.

No.

Mr. Fry votes no. Ms. Lee.

No.

Ms. Lee votes no. Mr. Langworthy.

No.

Mr. Langworthy votes no. Mr. Kean.

No.

Mr. Kean votes no. Mr. Rulli.

No.

Mr. Rulli votes no. Mr. Evans.

No.

Mr. Evans votes no. Mr. Goldman.

No.

Mr. Goldman votes no. Mrs. Fedorchak.

No.

Mrs. Fedorchak votes no. Mr. Pallone.

Aye.

Mr. Pallone votes aye. Ms. DeGette.

Aye.

Ms. DeGette votes aye. Ms. Schakowsky.

Aye.

Ms. Schakowsky votes aye. Ms. Matsui.

Aye.

Ms. Matsui votes aye. Ms. Castor.

Aye.

Ms. Castor votes aye. Mr. Tonko.

Aye.

Mr. Tonko votes aye. Ms. Clarke.

Aye.

Ms. Clarke votes aye. Mr. Ruiz.

Aye.

Mr. Ruiz votes aye. Mr. Peters.

Aye.

Mr. Peters votes aye. Mrs. Dingell.

Aye.

Mrs. Dingell votes aye. Mr. Veasey.

Aye.

Mr. Veasey votes aye. Ms. Kelly.

Aye.

Ms. Kelly votes aye. Ms. Barragán.

Aye.

Ms. Barragán votes aye. Mr. Soto.

Aye.

Mr. Soto votes aye. Ms. Schrier.

Aye.

Ms. Schrier votes aye. Ms. Trahan.

Aye.

Ms. Trahan votes aye. Ms. Fletcher.

Aye.

Ms. Fletcher votes aye. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.

Aye.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye. Mr. Auchincloss.

Aye.

Mr. Auchincloss votes aye. Mr. Carter of Louisiana.

Aye.

Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Menendez.

Aye.

Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mr. Mullin.

Aye.

Mr. Mullin votes aye. Mr. Landsman.

Aye.

Mr. Landsman votes aye. Ms. McClellan.

Aye.

Ms. McClellan votes aye. Chairman Guthrie.

No.

Chairman Guthrie votes no. Mr. James. Mr. James is not recorded.

James no.

Mr. James votes no. Mr. Pfluger.

No.

Mr. Pfluger votes no.

Saying none, the clerk will report.

Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there were 24 ayes and 28 noes.

The amendment is not agreed to. Are there is if there are further amendments? Mr. Mullin from what purpose is the gentleman from California seek recognition?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk titled MULLCA_062.

The clerk will report the amendment.

And I move to strike the last word.

Clerk will report.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 7757 offered by...

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman from California is recognized for five minutes to support of the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am the dad of twin eight-year-old boys, and I am truly worried about the world that awaits them on the internet. From addictive social media and exploitative advertising to body image issues, depression, and the ease with which dangerous interactions can occur, I am candidly dreading the day that they come asking for a smartphone. All of us as parents want the best for our kids. I know I am willing to do everything in my power to protect them, and I know that instinct is driving every one of us here. At the same time, not all kids are the same and not every household is the same. While some parents want to be able to monitor every interaction of their child, that's simply not realistic for the vast majority of us who are working. We have to provide a safe environment for them, but we also can't reorder the world based on our own personal viewpoints or family dynamics. I worry about the young person who needs to get confidential information about reproductive health care. I worry about the kid whose parent is abusing them and they need help. I worry about the kid who is figuring out their LGBTQ identity and is looking for support from peers or trusted sources. And as someone who cares deeply about civic engagement and instilling a love for this country and our democracy at an early age, I also worry about preventing kids from getting basic information about the world around them. Technology can be a powerful tool. Like any tool, though, it has inappropriate uses. I think all of us on this committee are in broad agreement that the status quo is unacceptable. I'm just worried about the negative byproduct of solutions that go too far in the name of protecting kids. That is why I am offering this amendment to the Safe Messaging for Kids Act portion of HR 7757, which would require the platforms with messaging tools give kids the ability to protect themselves from harm while giving parents the ability to review their child's protection settings. It would not go as far as the underlying bill does in banning certain types of messaging apps or requiring parents to by default approve or deny a child's every interaction or review the identity of their contacts. My approach would provide parental choice. It would still require a layer of protection for kids, empowering them with a range of safety features while enabling parents who wish to provide more oversight of their child's use of social media and messaging apps to do so. With my amendment, we're not letting tech companies off the hook, quite the contrary, but we're also acknowledging that one size does not fit all when it comes to parenting. I have concerns about overreach with any proposed solution when we're talking about mandates for the entire country. I offer my amendment to strike what I believe is a more balanced approach. Thank you to everyone who has been working on these important issues. I hope there can be more bipartisan work on this in the future rather than the partisan bills that have been put forward today. And with that, I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from North Dakota, Ms. Fedorchak, to speak on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, thank you. I seek to strike the last word.

The gentlelady is recognized.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, you heard Mr. Mullin say it himself. This amendment does not go as far as the bill that we are proposing. In other words, it weakens it. Provides less protection for kids and parents. This amendment guts the Safe Messaging for Kids Act by removing the bans of disappearing messages for minors and direct messaging for children and removes the parental consent for teens to engage in direct messaging. The only thing a parent can do under this amendment is view the direct messaging controls. Supporting this amendment means that it will make it easier for drug dealers anonymously to anonymously sell fentanyl to kids on Snapchat. It will make it easier for child predators to send direct messages to children. And it will make it easier for 14 year olds to direct message strangers in the next town. Removing the ban on disappearing messages will also hinder law enforcement's ability to crack down on drug dealers and criminals to gather evidence of crimes. This is an outrageous amendment that puts our kids at risk, hinders law enforcement, and like many of the amendments offered today, shows the complete distrust the minority has in America's parents. I urge my colleagues to reject this harmful amendment and vote yes on the underlying bill. I yield back.

The gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? I will recognize myself for five minutes to discuss on the amendment. One, this shows that we are going to have the opportunity to vote today and go on record of who is here to protect, giving parents their responsibility and giving the authority over their children. This is one of those moments we are going to have the chance to divide ourselves and say who is for it. And you know, it has been mentioned one that either Congress acts or the regulatory side acts or you go to court and act. And you know, Congress has the Article one responsibility and we talk a lot about right here and this is an opportunity to do that. So Congress in this bill is defining the action that we want taken or we could give a nebulous standard and send it to the FTC and let them define what it is and then 20, 30 years or five years down the road when it has nothing to do with this, use that kind of oh we have this vague language we can do something else. And we all are concerned about that as legislators of not specific enough in how we address things. Or the other one is that we just kind of blow this up and do nothing and just let the courts handle it, which is not is abdicating our responsibility. So I want to make sure that we know that Congress has to act. This is an act. And also I just want to say we are going to have different amendments today and this gives an opportunity to show whose sides people are on. And I will yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? The gentlelady, seeing none on the Democrat side, the gentlelady from Iowa is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I remember sitting here in this committee room when we had parents discussing with us their teenagers purchasing online through Snapchat drugs that were laced with fentanyl, one drug, one pill that led to their death. That those emotionally riveting messages from parents begging us to do something and how law enforcement could not do anything because the messages disappeared. In my day, if you wanted to get an illegal drug, you actually had to go to the bad part of town. There was a little shaming, it was risky, you were personally at risk by doing so. That is not today's world. To think that we would weaken a bill that would ban disappearing messages or that would allow direct messages to young teenagers, knowing that they can get parental consent, allow the parents to give that authority to those children if they so choose. I left home at 16, the fourth of eight kids, started working and going to community college, high level of responsibility. I realize not all kids are the same and can't do that. That is why you respect parental rights and give them the authority and responsibility for their own children. I strongly encourage people to vote against this ill-considered amendment. I yield back.

The gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion of the amendment? The gentlelady from Indiana is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am in strong opposition to this amendment for reasons that I have already stated today, but we ought to have safer protections. We should not have disappearing messages available through Snapchat or other means for our kids. And this amendment would strip that out of this bill. I hope that I have got colleagues on the other side of the aisle who would vote against this because it is just incredibly misguided on its face. Even if I don't allow my child to have one of these, they can still have access to these apps on their friends' phones, on other devices that they can get access to, which puts parents in a position in America today where they cannot protect their own children. It is unbelievable to me that tech companies would have that much authority over our kids. And for people out there that say it should be parents' responsibilities, it is, but we are outmatched because the tech availability today has reached into our homes and into our kids' bedrooms in a way and they've got the door locked and there's nothing that we can do unless we pass some of these very should be common sense and bipartisan bills. I am strongly opposed to this amendment and I hope that not just the Republicans on the committee but the Democrats on the committee will also vote no in recognition that children under the age of 16, 17 should not have access to these apps and platforms without any parental involvement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Seeing no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. A roll call has been requested and the clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Latta. Mr. Latta votes no. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith votes no. Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Bilirakis votes no. Mr. Hudson. Mr. Hudson votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Mr. Palmer. Mr. Palmer votes no. Mr. Dunn. Mr. Dunn votes no. Mr. Crenshaw. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce votes no. Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber votes no. Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen votes no. Mr. Balderson. Mr. Balderson votes no. Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Fulcher votes no. Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Pfluger votes no. Mrs. Harshbarger. Mrs. Harshbarger votes no. Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Mrs. Miller-Meeks votes no. Mrs. Cammack. Mrs. Cammack votes no. Mr. Obernolte. Mr. Obernolte votes no. Mr. James. Mr. James votes no. Mr. Bentz. Mr. Bentz votes no. Mrs. Houchin. Mrs. Houchin votes no. Mr. Fry. Mr. Fry votes no. Ms. Lee. Ms. Lee votes no. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy votes no. Mr. Kean. Mr. Kean votes no. Mr. Rulli. Mr. Rulli votes no. Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans votes no. Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman votes no. Mrs. Fedorchak. Mrs. Fedorchak votes no. Mr. Pallone. Mr. Pallone votes aye. Ms. DeGette. Ms. DeGette votes aye. 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. Ms. Clarke votes aye. Mr. Ruiz. Mr. Ruiz votes aye. Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters votes aye. Mrs. Dingell. Mrs. Dingell votes aye. Mr. Veasey. Mr. Veasey votes aye. Ms. Kelly. Ms. Kelly votes aye. 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. Fletcher votes aye. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. Auchincloss. Mr. Auchincloss votes aye. Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes aye. 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 no.

The clerk will report. Has anyone seeking a roll call? Will the clerk report?

Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there are 23 ayes and 29 nos.

How many ayes, I am sorry?

Mr. Chairman, there are 23 ayes and 29 nos.

With 23 ayes and 29 nos, the nos have it and the bill the amendment is not agreed to. The clerk or are there further or are there any further amendments? The gentlelady from Michigan, what purpose you seek recognition?

I have an amendment at the desk.

You identify the amendment?

Arbitration 01 XML.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7757 offered by Mrs. Dingell of Michigan. Page 76.

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in support of her amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As drafted, this bill deeply concerns me on parents' rights. It contains preemption language and complex liability shields that in practice make it harder for families to seek justice. Children are going to continue to die. Parents are going to continue to get stonewalled. And all the while, tech companies will continue to avoid accountability. We are not talking about hypothetical situations. According to reports, more than 800 parents of children who allegedly have been sexually exploited online have recently demanded that Big Tech abandon efforts to force claims into arbitration. Here is what happens with forced arbitration. It keeps cases secret, it limits accountability, and it denies families their day in court. And before someone else says this is the trial lawyers, you, I have my daily moments with the trial lawyers. Remember where I come from, I'm in the auto industry. But this is something that parents have a right because if they're going to try to help other parents, you cannot hide what has happened. I will note that nearly 80 percent of consumers don't even realize they've signed away their right to sue through forced arbitration clauses that are buried in contracts and terms of the services. And let's all be honest, once in arbitration, companies win most cases. If we are serious about protecting kids online, we cannot simultaneously shield platforms from public accountability. Transparency and justice matter. And that is why I've introduced this amendment to ensure that children and their parents are not forced into mandatory arbitration when bringing claims involves online safety or privacy harms. That families have a right to seek relief in court. This is about accountability, it's about transparency, and it's about fairness. And ultimately, it protects our children. With that, I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, a roll call being requested. Oh, there is. Seeing none, the clerk will call the roll. Gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none...

Mr. Latta.

No.

Mr. Latta votes no. Mr. Griffith.

No.

Mr. Griffith votes no. Mr. Bilirakis.

No.

Mr. Bilirakis votes no. Mr. Hudson.

No.

Mr. Hudson votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Palmer.

No.

Mr. Palmer votes no. Mr. Dunn.

No.

Mr. Dunn votes no. Mr. Crenshaw. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Weber.

No.

Mr. Weber votes no. Mr. Allen. Mr. Balderson.

No.

Mr. Balderson votes no. Mr. Fulcher.

No.

Mr. Fulcher votes no. Mr. Pfluger.

No.

Mr. Pfluger votes no. Mrs. Harshbarger.

No.

Mrs. Harshbarger votes no. Mrs. Miller-Meeks.

No.

Mrs. Miller-Meeks votes no. Mrs. Cammack.

No.

Mrs. Cammack votes no. Mr. Obernolte.

No.

Mr. Obernolte votes no. Mr. James.

No.

Mr. James votes no. Mr. Bentz.

No.

Mr. Bentz votes no. Mrs. Houchin.

No.

Mrs. Houchin votes no. Mr. Fry.

No.

Mr. Fry votes no. Ms. Lee.

No.

Ms. Lee votes no. Mr. Langworthy.

No.

Mr. Langworthy votes no. Mr. Kean.

No.

Mr. Kean votes no. Mr. Rulli. Mr. Evans.

No.

Mr. Evans votes no. Mr. Goldman.

No.

Mr. Goldman votes no. Mrs. Fedorchak.

No.

Mrs. Fedorchak votes no. Mr. Pallone.

Aye.

Mr. Pallone votes aye. Ms. DeGette.

Aye.

Ms. DeGette votes aye. Ms. Schakowsky.

Aye.

Ms. Schakowsky votes aye. Ms. Matsui.

Aye.

Ms. Matsui votes aye. Ms. Castor.

Aye.

Ms. Castor votes aye. Mr. Tonko.

Aye.

Mr. Tonko votes aye. Ms. Clarke.

Aye.

Ms. Clarke votes aye. Mr. Ruiz.

Aye.

Mr. Ruiz votes aye. Mr. Peters.

Aye.

Mr. Peters votes aye. Mrs. Dingell.

Aye.

Mrs. Dingell votes aye. Mr. Veasey. Ms. Kelly.

Aye.

Ms. Kelly votes aye. Ms. Barragán.

Aye.

Ms. Barragán votes aye. Mr. Soto.

Aye.

Mr. Soto votes aye. Ms. Schrier.

Aye.

Ms. Schrier votes aye. Ms. Trahan.

Aye.

Ms. Trahan votes aye. Ms. Fletcher.

Aye.

Ms. Fletcher votes aye. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. Auchincloss.

Aye.

Mr. Auchincloss votes aye. Mr. Carter of Louisiana.

Aye.

Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Menendez.

Aye.

Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mr. Mullin.

Aye.

Mr. Mullin votes aye. Mr. Landsman.

Aye.

Mr. Landsman votes aye. Ms. McClellan.

Aye.

Ms. McClellan votes aye. Chairman Guthrie.

No.

Chairman Guthrie votes no.

How was Dr. Joyce recorded?

Mr. Joyce is not recorded.

Joyce votes no.

Mr. Joyce votes no.

Mr. Carter of Georgia.

Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no.

Anyone on the Democrat side seeking recognition? Mr. Veasey.

Mr. Veasey's not recorded.

Veasey votes aye.

Mr. Veasey votes aye.

Seeing none, the clerk will report.

Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there are 23 ayes and 27 nos.

The amendment is not agreed to. Are there any further amendments? For what purpose gentlelady from Washington seek recognition?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Identify your, I'm sorry. 23.

23. Schrier Washington 23.

Clerk will report.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7757...

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentlelady from Washington is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I said before, I'm extremely frustrated with this markup and protecting kids online is paramount and we are years behind in passing legislation. We can't keep letting entire generations of kids be treated like guinea pigs to predatory Big Tech and social media platforms. I know that the concerns in this committee are genuinely bipartisan. We need our policy to be bipartisan too. That's why I'm offering an amendment today to include the text of the Kids Off Social Media Act. This is a bipartisan, bicameral bill that has strong support in the Senate and even passed out of the Senate Commerce Committee. It is a bill that will keep kids under 13 off social media entirely and would prevent social media companies from using any personalized recommendation systems on minors under the age of 17 and it actually has a path forward. These are vital protections for kids who are spending too much time being sucked into social media by algorithms that are designed to keep them scrolling. I urge my colleagues to come to the table on strong bipartisan proposals so that we can pass truly comprehensive and impactful legislation to protect kids on, online. I know we need to continue to work on this as a committee and so I withdraw this amendment and I will yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Is there further, further discussion? Gentlelady from Indiana is recognized for five minutes to speak on the new amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong opposition to this bill. It has, this amendment, the Kids Off Social Media Act should be called the Kids On Social Media Act because it sets a minimum age for social media at the age of 13, which would do nothing to prevent the issues that I experienced as a parent or that any of these other parents have experienced. That's the exact threshold that every major platform already has today. It has been the standard for 30 years, mostly because of how online services comply with COPPA 1.0 from 1996. We would be writing into federal law the same standard that Meta has been hiding behind for a decade. That is not reform, it is not good, that's a gift to Big Tech. I don't, there shouldn't be a single individual in here that thinks the status quo is acceptable to prevent harm. How much research do we need to know to have to prove that we think 13 should not be the age of adulthood for kids online? That this bill simply makes the broken status quo permanent. The science is not ambiguous. The heaviest damage for anxiety, depression, and self-harm hits hardest between the ages of 11 and 15. My RESET Act draws the line at 16 because that's what research demands and because it actually requires the platforms to do something different than what they're already doing. I appreciate the intent behind the amendment. I hope that Representative Schrier will come on board to the RESET Act where it sets a clear line at age 16. But by codifying the status quo and calling it a win is not something I can support. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and join me for pushing in for a standard that will actually move the line and protect children. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Will the gentlelady yield?

Ms. Houchin, did the gentlelady yield to the gentlelady from Washington? Did you yield back or did you...

I yield back.

So the gentle, so you yield back. Did I understand that, I must have misheard, did you withdraw the amendment?

I withdrew my amendment, but I just had one comment to make, but thank you for your comments, Ms. Houchin.

Thank you. The amendment has been withdrawn. Are there any further amendments? Seeing none, if there's no further amendments, we'll move to the amendment in the nature of substitute. Are there any amendments to the amendment in the nature of the substitute? Mr. Dunn.

Move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

Gentleman is recognized to strike the last word.

So I want to urge my colleagues to support this legislation, my legislation, the Safe Messaging for Kids Act, included in Chairman Guthrie's KIDS Act today. The KIDS Act is a package of bipartisan bills that brings together several pieces of legislation, many of which my colleagues and I have been working on to perfect for years. I'm proud of my friend Chairman Guthrie in prioritizing protecting children by ensuring that we pass these bills through committee today. As a father and a grandfather, I vehemently maintain that our data privacy laws must be updated to protect minors online. My grandkids are living in 2026, not 1998 when the COPPA Act was first passed. Our laws must keep pace with the tech our younger generations are using. And today we're facing a crisis of our own making and we failed to provide the digital equivalent of seatbelts or smoke detectors. As a doctor, when a patient is bleeding, I don't wait for a committee report, I apply a tourniquet. Right now our children are bleeding. They're being targeted, groomed, exploited on social media platforms built with features that allow predators to operate in the shadows. That is why I introduced the Safe Messaging for Kids Act. This bill is a direct intervention to stop two specific mechanisms that predators use to hunt our children: ephemeral messaging and unsolicited contact. Ephemeral messaging is the technical term for messages that vanish automatically after being viewed. Predators depend on these disappearing messages. They erase the trail of grooming, cyberbullying, illegal drug sales before a parent can detect it and long before law enforcement can act. My bill puts an end to this. Under the SMK Act, social media platforms are prohibited from offering auto-deleting messages and features to any user they know or deliberately avoid knowing is under the age of 17. The solution is restoring parental authority. The SMK Act requires parental direct messaging controls that put the parents back in charge. For children under 13, direct messaging must be turned off by default. For teens under 17, parents must have visibility into who is attempting to contact their child. Platforms will be required to alert parents to messages from unapproved contacts and give them the power to approve or deny those requests before the communication begins. This is not helicopter parenting, it is responsible parenting. We're giving families the tools they need to protect their children. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Our children depend on us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

You withdraw your motion to strike the last word? You withdraw your motion to strike the last word? You withdraw your motion to strike the last word. So now, if there's no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, and this will be voice vote unless someone requests different. All those in favor shall say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say nay.

Nay.

The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. The question now occurs on adopting H.R. 7757 as amended. A roll call has been requested, and the clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Latta.

Aye.

Mr. Latta votes aye. Mr. Griffith.

Aye.

Mr. Griffith votes aye. Mr. Bilirakis.

Aye.

Mr. Bilirakis votes aye. Mr. Hudson.

Aye.

Mr. Hudson votes aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia.

Aye.

Mr. Carter of Georgia votes aye. Mr. Palmer.

Aye.

Mr. Palmer votes aye. Mr. Dunn.

Aye.

Mr. Dunn votes aye. Mr. Crenshaw. Mr. Joyce.

Aye.

Mr. Joyce votes aye. Mr. Weber. Mr. Allen.

Aye.

Mr. Allen votes aye. Mr. Balderson. Mr. Balderson votes aye. Mr. Fulcher.

Aye.

Mr. Fulcher votes aye. Mr. Pfluger.

Aye.

Mr. Pfluger votes aye. Mrs. Harshbarger.

Aye.

Mrs. Harshbarger votes aye. Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Mrs. Miller-Meeks votes aye. Mrs. Cammack.

Aye.

Mrs. Cammack votes aye. Mr. Obernolte.

Aye.

Mr. Obernolte votes aye. Mr. James.

Aye.

Mr. James votes aye. Mr. Bentz. Mr. Bentz votes aye. Mrs. Houchin.

Aye.

Mrs. Houchin votes aye. Mr. Fry.

Aye.

Mr. Fry votes aye. Ms. Lee.

Aye.

Ms. Lee votes aye. Mr. Langworthy.

Aye.

Mr. Langworthy votes aye. Mr. Kean. Mr. Kean votes aye. Mr. Rulli. Mr. Evans.

Aye.

Mr. Evans votes aye. Mr. Goldman.

Aye.

Mr. Goldman votes aye. Mrs. Fedorchak.

Aye.

Mrs. Fedorchak votes aye. Mr. Pallone.

No.

Mr. Pallone votes no. Ms. DeGette.

No.

Ms. DeGette votes no. Ms. Schakowsky.

No.

Ms. Schakowsky votes no. Ms. Matsui.

No.

Ms. Matsui votes no. Ms. Castor.

No.

Ms. Castor votes no. Mr. Tonko.

No.

Mr. Tonko votes no. Ms. Clarke.

No.

Ms. Clarke votes no. Mr. Ruiz.

No.

Mr. Ruiz votes no. Mr. Peters.

No.

Mr. Peters votes no. Mrs. Dingell. Mrs. Dingell votes no. Mr. Veasey.

No.

Mr. Veasey votes no. Ms. Kelly.

No.

Ms. Kelly votes no. Ms. Barragán.

No.

Ms. Barragán votes no. Mr. Soto.

No.

Mr. Soto votes no. Ms. Schrier.

No.

Ms. Schrier votes no. Ms. Trahan.

No.

Ms. Trahan votes no. Ms. Fletcher. Ms. Fletcher votes no. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.

No.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes no. Mr. Auchincloss.

No.

Mr. Auchincloss votes no. Mr. Carter of Louisiana.

No.

Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes no. Mr. Menendez.

No.

Mr. Menendez votes no. Mr. Mullin.

No.

Mr. Mullin votes no. Mr. Landsman.

No.

Mr. Landsman votes no. Ms. McClellan. Ms. McClellan votes no. Chairman Guthrie.

Aye.

Chairman Guthrie votes aye. So Mr. Weber.

Yes.

Mr. Weber votes aye. Anyone on the Republican, Democrat side? Everyone having voted? Anyone coming, on their way, anybody knows if anybody's on their way? Seeing none, the clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there were 28 ayes and 24 nos.

The ayes have it, and the bill is adopted. So in honor of Mr. Chapman, in honor of your son, the chair calls up H.R. 2657, known as Sammy's Law, and asks the clerk to report.

H.R. 2657, a bill to require large social media platforms providers to create, maintain, and make available to third-party safety software providers a set of real-time application...

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point, so ordered. Does anybody seek to be recognized on the bill? Mr. Carter from Georgia, you're recognized for five minutes.

Got an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

You want to do the amendment first? So it's up to y'all.

The clerk have the amendment? Clerk will report the amendment. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2657, offered by Mr. Carter of Georgia. Strike all after the enacting...

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by recognizing the young man this bill is named after. If we can get it up. Sammy Chapman, whose picture is behind me. Sammy was a bright and a talented teenager whose life was tragically cut short after he became the victim of a fentanyl-poisoned drug he bought through social media. Like so many parents across the country, Sammy's family had no idea who he was talking to and what about until it was too late. We have the honor today of having Sammy's father here and other parents of their child victims today. Mr. Chapman, thank you for being here. You honor us with your presence. What happened to Sammy is a heartbreaking reminder that the social media world our children inhabit today can expose them to dangers that most parents simply cannot see and sometimes don't understand. And that's exactly why Sammy's Law is so important. This legislation gives parents the ability to use trusted, vetted, safe tools that allow them to responsibly supervise their child's social media activity on large social media platforms. Through secure interfaces, families can authorize safety software that can alert parents when dangerous content comes across their child's social media account. Today, kids face real dangers on social media, including online predators, exploitation, drug sales, suicide encouragement, and trafficking networks that actively target young users. Third-party safety software can and does provide life-saving alerts for all of these harms. It is comprehensive protection. Simply put, this bill restores something parents should never have lost: the ability to protect their children on social media. Too often, parents often discover these threats after a tragedy has already occurred. Sammy's Law gives families the tools they need to identify those warning signs earlier and intervene before harm is done. And in doing so, this bill will save lives. Sammy's Law also includes strong safeguards to protect children's data and ensure responsible use of these tools. Third-party safety software providers must register with the Federal Trade Commission, undergo independent annual audits, and are strictly prohibited from selling children's data. Data disclosure to parents is limited only to what is necessary to protect a child from harm. Remember, only to what is necessary to protect a child from harm. And strict deletion requirements ensure that sensitive information is not retained unnecessarily. In other words, this bill carefully balanced child safety with strong, new privacy protections. And at the end of the day, Sammy's Law is about empowering families. It gives parents the ability to see when their child may be in danger and the opportunity to step in before it becomes a tragedy. This is absolutely necessary because the harms that our children are confronting on social media are severe, and our children simply do not yet have the development skills to protect themselves alone. If this bill helps even one family, even one family avoid what happened to Sammy Chapman, then it will be worth it. As the proud grandfather of eight beautiful grandkids, I want to know that their parents and all other parents across the country have the best safety tools possible when protecting their innocent loved ones. What happened to Sammy is a travesty that no parent should experience, and we can prevent it today by passing this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. This is important legislation. As my colleague Representative Miller-Meeks said a little while ago, parents need help. They need help with this. They can't do it alone. This is a tool that will help them, a tool in their tool chest. God forbid that this happened to anyone else. We need to take action. You know, I doubt any of you knew my dad, but my dad used to tell me something. He used to say, son, when you don't do something, you're doing something. And if we don't do something, then we're doing something. We're ignoring an opportunity to help people. We need to do something today. We need to pass Sammy's Law. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for five minutes to speak on the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to say that I share the goal of this bill to keep kids safe and to prevent more tragedies from occurring, but I have to oppose the bill today because I am concerned that it takes us a step in the wrong direction on privacy. This bill requires social media companies to provide access to children's private accounts and communications to third-party safety software providers who then are empowered to share these communications with law enforcement and parents. I have concerns both about the precedent this sets for private communications, including encrypted communications, and the potential for harm to kids whose parents enable this monitoring software. These third-party safety software providers would be sitting in on conversations between children and their friends, enabled to view encrypted messages, undermining the privacy of children, even those whose parents might not consent to this surveillance. The providers would be required to keep data related to disclosures made under the act until a request for deletion or a child turning 17. That is not data minimization in action, and I'm very concerned that we need data minimization. Moreover, not all kids are raised in supportive or even safe households. As Congress, we have a duty to keep all kids safe, and I worry that this bill risks exposing kids in bad situations to harm if their conversations are revealed to their parents. And for these reasons, I will be voting no on H.R. 2657. But despite my no vote today, I do remain committed to continuing to work on solutions to hold tech companies like Snap accountable for making their platforms a safer place for kids online. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes gentlelady from Iowa for five minutes to speak on the bill or the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank Representatives Carter, Schrier, and Wasserman Schultz for their work on this important bill. Millions of children and teenagers interact with social media every single day, and many are exposed to content that can negatively affect their mental health and their well-being. And never have we seen this more clearly than we did during the pandemic when children were isolated and not in school. As parents try to navigate an ever-changing digital landscape for which their children often are more proficient than they are, they deserve practical tools that can help them keep their children safe online. The primary duty of a parent is to protect their children. Sammy's Law takes a common-sense approach by giving parents more control over their children's online experiences. The bill creates pathways for trusted third-party safety applications that can alert parents when harmful or dangerous content is shared with their child. For goodness sake, when I grew up, you could not go buy a pornographic magazine in the store without having proof of ID or parent or some other adult gave it to you. Just as important, it ensures families have access to mental health resources when young people need additional support. At its core, this legislation is about empowering parents and providing them with options to better protect their children in today's digital environment. I appreciate the bipartisan effort behind this bill and look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to ensure their families have tools that they need to keep their kids safe online. I now yield time to Representative Carter.

Thank the gentlelady for yielding. I want to address the concerns that the minority leader had addressed about the privacy. Actually, what Sammy's Law does is it improves children's privacy compared to the status quo. We're actually improving the status quo right now. Today, most parents who are deeply concerned about the dangers of social media, and they should be, and they're following the common-sense advice of the experts like the American Psychological Association. They attempt to provide responsible supervision of social media use. But as has been pointed out in this hearing, they need help. They can't do it alone. And without comprehensive access to safety software, many parents resort to invasive methods like manually reviewing their child's phone. Safety software instead provides targeted alerts, targeted alerts, key phrases, keywords, only when serious risks are detected, such as suicide, exploitation, or trafficking. So to address the concerns about the privacy, we are actually improving the privacy. And I yield back to the lady from Iowa.

Thank you. I would just say that my first grandchild was born this weekend. [Applause.] And even though I supported this bill before, I want this child's parents to have the tools they need to protect that precious little baby. Thank you, and I yield back.

Welcome back to the welcome to the grandparents club. It's a wonderful club, isn't it, Mr. Ranking Member? [Applause.] The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman, and congratulations to the gentlelady. I want to express that I think the gentleman from Georgia is making some really reasonable points here and that, frankly, as a parent of three children, I would probably avail myself of these tools because I understand the intent here. Let me put forward, though, two considerations that are keeping me from voting yes on this. The first is that we have to recognize the pattern that when we build skeleton keys into the backs of technology, those skeleton keys do get abused by bad actors. We have seen this pattern over the course of 20 years here. They get abused by law enforcement at various levels and in ways that undermine due process and civil rights. That's not academic. Unfortunately, we're seeing that right now with this federal government. They get abused by overzealous attorneys general in pursuit of ideological causes. They get abused by unsupportive parents or spouses or significant others, including parents of the children that your children is interacting with, because remember there's two degrees of association here that the privacy can be revealed. And I think we have to really acknowledge that these skeleton keys are going to be abused by bad actors and that those long-tail effects have real consequences. The second consideration, though, to me is more fundamental, which is I worry about the premise that we are accepting here. It feels like we are accepting a premise that big tech has created a surveillance economy at the expense of our children. And so the way to counteract that is to give parents the tools to also surveil their children and to have a sort of cat-and-mouse game of who can surveil more effectively. Well, you know what? Parents are going to lose that because they don't have 100,000 software engineers and, you know, consultant addiction specialists like Mark Zuckerberg does. Parents are trying to work a job and keep their kids healthy and figure out the day-in, day-out life. They can't be tech experts keeping up to date with all the latest software applications. What we actually need to do is here in Congress, where we do have the power, is hold these social media corporations accountable directly with a duty of care, with age limits, and of course with liability, so that when they violate the trust that parents are putting in them when their kids download these apps, they can be sued for it. That is the way I think that we empower parents against their surveillance economy. I yield back, Chair.

Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Mr. Palmer from Alabama is recognized for five minutes.

Thank the Chairman. I move to strike the last word. I rise to speak on the amendment. This is serious stuff, and I realize that there are serious discussions about privacy. But we have got to realize that the parents have to know what's going on with their children. And I think that is of paramount importance here. I think what Representative Carter's trying to do is empower the parents, give them the tools that they need to be able to intervene before it's too late. And with that, I'll yield time to Representative Carter.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just wanted to respond, if I could, to my friend from Massachusetts, and he made some good points. There is a risk here of abuse. You know, I don't know if y'all knew it or not, I'm a pharmacist. And one of the things that it's news to everybody. That's an inside joke, folks. Anyway, no, seriously, seriously, one of the things that we did when I was a consultant pharmacist in long-term care facility, you always considered does the risk outweigh the benefit. In this case, it does not. The benefit outweighs the risk. This is a benefit. Yes, there are risk. And to the gentleman's other point about duty of care and about making it stronger, I'm sure we can make it stronger. But let's not let perfect get in the way of very good. This is a good bill. This is a good step, a good step in the right direction. Yeah, we need to do more, and we will do more. And the gentleman is absolutely right when he says that we're not going to be able to outcompete the platforms. They've got addiction experts. He's absolutely right. But that doesn't mean we can't try. That doesn't mean we don't do everything we can to give parents a fighting chance. And this gives parents a fighting chance. And I'll yield back to the gentleman from Alabama.

I yield.

Gentleman yields back. Gentlelady from Washington, Dr. Schrier, is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm very proud to be able to support Sammy's Law during this markup today along with my colleagues, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Carter, and Dr. Miller-Meeks. I've been listening to all the comments here today, listening as the mom of a 17-year-old, and I look at the parents here today and I just think all we want to do is keep our kids safe. And I don't know about other parents out there. I mean, I have an agreement with my son that it was part of the deal, you know, like we get you a phone, we get access to it because we want to make sure you're safe. But, you know, I also feel like at 17 he deserves privacy and that it's not really okay for me to be reading his text messages. I mean, what it really comes down to is we just want to be alerted if there's something that's really dangerous going on that would give us a signal so that we could just sit down and have a conversation and not miss the opportunity. And this doesn't let social media companies off the hook. It has nothing to do with that. This is just giving parents another tool. These third-party platforms, they're already out there. Parents already use them. This just makes it so that if there's something really dangerous coming up, that all of these social media platforms, all the major ones, have to participate and let these kind of watchdog parent-supporting platforms have access to that so that parents have more reassurance. It's a bipartisan bill. We've worked on this for years, and I'm really happy to see it moving forward with lots of support today. It just ensures that parents have another tool to keep their kids safe online while still preserving their privacy. And I know about the parents who are here in the room today. Thank you, Mr. Chapman, for being here. They've lost their kids to fentanyl poisoning and suicide and harassment online, bullying. And these are things that are caused by the platforms and then the people, many adults, that kids encounter online. And so I just want to thank all the parents here for your advocacy. This bill is named after, as you know, 16-year-old Sammy Chapman, who unknowingly bought a fentanyl-laced pill on Snapchat, and that pill killed him. And he is far from the only one, and that is why this law is so necessary. It would ensure that third-party safety apps can just alert parents when their child is experiencing or at clear risk to experience harm. There are very specific categories: suicide, depression, eating disorders, violence, sexual abuse, trafficking. These safety apps are watchdogs that alert parents when there is a real and an imminent risk of harm to their child. They share only the most necessary information so that the parents can understand what the danger might be. And this doesn't help parents track their kids' every move or thought online, it just helps them know what's going on so they can keep their kids out of true and life-threatening harm. Many social media companies, as I mentioned, already provide access to these apps, but notably Snapchat does not. Sammy's Law would ensure that all major social media companies provide access so that bad actors can't skirt these important protections. I really truly believe that Sammy's Law will save lives. Keeping kids safe online is a tall task for any parent these days, and Sammy's Law will make that task just a little easier and will keep kids safer. I want to thank my colleagues again who I have partnered with on this bill, and I want to thank you for your hard work and collaboration, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill, support parents, and keep kids safe. And I yield back.

The gentlelady yields back. The gentlelady from New York is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.

Thank you. I'd like to also kind of speak a little bit to some of the concerns that the gentleman from Massachusetts had raised earlier as well. In this bill, I've seen a couple of aspects here that I think are points of concern. One, this idea of making available third-party safety software by tech creators or by tech companies to manage children's online interactions, content, and account settings. These, from what we are seeing, these third-party softwares are very likely to be powered by AI. And I have massive concerns about the absolute explosion in unregulated expansion of AI jurisdiction around personal and sensitive information, and particularly around AI's collection of data around children. From what I also see, there is state preemption included in the bill, which I think also raises some other concerns that we've had around this issue and the privacy piece as well in terms of abuse of some of the most sensitive information about some of our most vulnerable Americans and American children. And so I just wanted to raise some of those aspects of this in this debate. And with that, I yield back.

Gentlelady, I'm sorry, gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the Republican side? The gentlelady from Virginia, Ms. McClellan, you're recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, this one is a hard one for me because I understand what we're trying to do, and again as a parent, I agree with the concept. But I have some very real concerns about, you know, as the gentleman from Massachusetts had said, we're basically creating a surveillance state on our children. And the more entities or hands, virtual hands, that touch data, the more likely it is to be stolen. And I don't think the cybersecurity safeguards in this bill are strong enough. And one of the things we haven't talked about yet that we need to do to keep our kids safe is how images and data about our children is being stolen and manipulated to create deepfakes that include using them in AI-generated pornography. And to survey all of our children's social media interactions or digital interactions to flag something that is dangerous, remember, they're looking at every single interaction. And if somebody hacks that or gets a hold of that and the cybersecurity safeguards fail, you are giving more people a touchpoint. Basically, you are saying, you want to find kid online data? Here's your target. Go hack this site and you will have access to a plethora of private data, images, or whatever of kids. And before we go down that road, we've got to be really sure that the cybersecurity safeguards are strong enough to protect that new target from some really bad actors. I'm not sure we've thought through that far enough, and I hope we can fix that concern. I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion? Further discussion? Seeing none, the vote we have to adopt the amendment in the nature of a substitute. I believe we agreed that will be a voice vote. So I will call, all those in favor shall signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. The question now occurs on adopting Sammy's Law, H.R. 2657, as amended. A roll call has been requested and the clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Latta.

Aye.

Mr. Latta votes aye. Mr. Griffith.

Aye.

Mr. Griffith votes aye. Mr. Bilirakis.

Aye.

Mr. Bilirakis votes aye. Mr. Hudson.

Aye.

Mr. Hudson votes aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia.

Aye.

Mr. Carter of Georgia votes aye. Mr. Palmer.

Aye.

Mr. Palmer votes aye. Mr. Dunn.

Aye.

Mr. Dunn votes aye. Mr. Crenshaw. Mr. Joyce.

Aye.

Mr. Joyce votes aye. Mr. Weber. Mr. Allen. 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.

Aye.

Mrs. Miller-Meeks votes aye. Mrs. Cammack. Mr. Obernolte.

Aye.

Mr. Obernolte votes aye. Mr. James.

Aye.

Mr. James votes aye. Mr. Bentz.

Aye.

Mr. Bentz votes aye. Mrs. Houchin.

Aye.

Mrs. Houchin votes aye. Mr. Fry.

Aye.

Mr. Fry votes aye. Ms. Lee.

Aye.

Ms. Lee votes aye. Mr. Langworthy.

Aye.

Mr. Langworthy votes aye. Mr. Kean.

Aye.

Mr. Kean votes aye. Mr. Rulli.

Aye.

Mr. Rulli votes aye. Mr. Evans.

Aye.

Mr. Evans votes aye. Mr. Goldman.

Aye.

Mr. Goldman votes aye. Mrs. Fedorchak.

Aye.

Mrs. Fedorchak votes aye. Mr. Pallone.

No.

Mr. Pallone votes no. Ms. DeGette.

No.

Ms. DeGette votes no. Ms. Schakowsky votes no. Ms. Matsui.

No.

Ms. Matsui votes no. Ms. Castor. Ms. Castor.

No.

Ms. Castor votes no. Mr. Tonko.

No.

Mr. Tonko votes no. Ms. Clarke.

No.

Ms. Clarke votes no. Mr. Ruiz.

Aye.

Mr. Ruiz votes aye. Mr. Peters.

No.

Mr. Peters votes no. Mrs. Dingell.

Aye.

Mrs. Dingell votes aye. Mr. Veasey.

No.

Mr. Veasey votes no. Ms. Kelly. Ms. Barragán.

Aye.

Ms. Barragán votes aye. Mr. Soto.

Aye.

Mr. Soto votes aye. Ms. Schrier.

Aye.

Ms. Schrier votes aye. Ms. Trahan.

Aye.

Ms. Trahan votes aye. Ms. Fletcher.

No.

Ms. Fletcher votes no. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.

No.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes no. Mr. Auchincloss.

No.

Mr. Auchincloss votes no. Mr. Carter of Louisiana.

No.

Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes no. Mr. Menendez. Mr. Menendez. Mr. Menendez.

No.

Mr. Menendez votes no. Mr. Mullin.

No.

Mr. Mullin votes no. Mr. Landsman.

Aye.

Mr. Landsman votes aye. Ms. McClellan.

No.

Ms. McClellan votes no. Chairman Guthrie.

Aye.

Chairman Guthrie votes aye. Mr. Weber.

Aye.

Mr. Weber votes aye. Mr. Allen.

Aye.

Mr. Allen votes aye. Ms. Cammack. Ms. Cammack is not recorded.

Aye.

Ms. Cammack votes aye. Mr. Pfluger.

Aye.

Mr. Pfluger votes aye. Anybody else on the Republican side? The Democrat side? Has everybody voted that recorded? The clerk will report. Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there were 36 ayes and 16 nos.

The ayes have it, the bill is adopted. [Applause.] The chair calls up H.R. 3149 and asks the clerk to report.

H.R. 3149, a bill to safeguard children by providing parents with clear and accurate information about the apps downloaded.

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 seem to be recognized on the bill? If there's no discussion on the bill, what purpose does the gentleman from Michigan seek recognition?

Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition to speak on behalf of my bill.

We have an amendment at the desk. Okay. So the amendment in the nature of substitute from Mr. James. Have an amendment at the desk at the nature in the nature of substitute. I am grateful to my colleague... Well, let me, he has to report the amendment, I'm sorry. We've got an amendment to report.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3149.

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman from Michigan is recognized to speak for five minutes in support of the amendment.

I'm grateful to my colleague Mr. Obernolte for working on this bill with me. This amendment represents a narrow and practical update to the App Store Accountability Act, while at the same time maintaining the core spirit of the bill. My number one goal has always been to empower parents and protect children online. This is what parents want and this is what my bill will do. As I said in earlier, kids cannot consent and any company that exposes them to addictive or adult material should be held accountable. I repeat, kids cannot consent and no one's above the law, including Big Tech. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields? Gentleman yields, is there any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing no further discussion on the amendment, are there further amendments? Oh, you're, I'm sorry. Gentleman from Texas is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.

Yes, no, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I'm not supporting the amendment. I'm happy to see that we're having conversation that these companies are having conversations about around these apps being accountable. But definitely still have some some issues, but I'm glad that we are at least having some conversations around there because I think that this is probably just the beginning of something that I think is going to be important in helping get this right. So I just wanted to put that in there and want to thank the gentleman for working on the amendment even though I'm not supporting it today. Thank you.

Gentleman yields back. Is there gentleman from California seeking recognition to speak on the amendment?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentleman is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill, H.R. 3149, takes some very meaningful steps in giving parents visibility and control over the content that their children consume through mobile applications and app stores. And I'd like to thank my colleague Representative James and the committee staff for working with me on improving the bill. I think we've made a lot of meaningful progress here. This is something that this work product is something that's very implementable now and although I think it still needs a little bit more work moving forward, it's it's really come a long way and I'd urge everyone to support it and give parents the tools that they need to oversee the content that their kids are consuming online. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Are there any speaking on the amendment in the nature of substitute? I will recognize myself to speak on the amendment and I will yield to Mr. James from Michigan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. Just so we're clear and we're laying the battlefield, the App Store Accountability Act holds big tech companies to the same standard as local corner stores. It protects the next generation by empowering parents and making clear that when it comes to safeguarding children, no one gets a free pass. How many studies, how many congressional hearings do we need to know the status quo is broken? How many heartbreaking stories need to hear from parents? So many of us on this committee are parents ourselves. We see with our own eyes the threat that big tech poses to children every single day. Our nation's children deserve better and we will act right now. Big tech is exploiting our laws as they continue to rake in billions of dollars in profit at the expense of our nation's children. Social media is not only addictive service for children, but is also harmful to their mental acuity and overall health. Statistician Edward Tufte said, there are only two industries that call their customers users: illegal drugs and software. As a father of three school-aged boys, the warning signs of social media's impact on kids are abundantly clear to me and to all parents. The App Store Accountability Act is the appropriate response to ensure that children are not accessing restricted material through online app stores and it gives parents real control over what their kids can download. I'm grateful for the positive feedback that I've received from so many over so long about this App Store Accountability Act. I'm especially appreciative of Chair Bilirakis and Rep Houchin for co-sponsoring the bill and as Mr. Obernolte mentioned, he has been working closely with us to make it stronger. Just as brick and mortar stores are held responsible for selling age-restricted materials like tobacco and alcohol to minors, the App Store Accountability Act will hold digital app stores accountable for providing adult or age-restricted materials to minors as well. It's simple. Kids cannot consent and any company that exposes them to addictive or adult material should be held accountable. I repeat, kids cannot consent. We would never allow a bank or a car dealership to enter into binding agreements with 13 or 14-year-olds. Why are we allowing billion-dollar tech companies to do exactly the same thing? No one is above the law, especially big tech. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join the more than 4,500 parents and over 150 organizations across the country who've expressed their support for this App Store Accountability Act. And with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding and I yield back.

Thank you. The gentleman yields back to me and I will yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Are there other amendments to the bill? The gentleman from Massachusetts, for what purpose do you seek recognition?

I do not seek recognition. When it's appropriate, I have an amendment at the desk.

You have an amendment at the desk?

Yes.

Okay. So gentleman from Massachusetts has what amendment would you like to identify?

031.

Clerk will report.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3149 offered by Mr. Auchincloss of Massachusetts.

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.

Thank you, Chair. This amendment would strike the text of the App Store Accountability Act and replace it with my bipartisan bill, the Parents Over Platforms Act. Age assurance and verification is an important and necessary part of the kids' online safety conversation. It's the legal and technical infrastructure for so much of what we want to do and it's overdue. But the App Store Accountability Act is regrettably not the path forward on this issue and I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and support my amendment. The App Store Accountability Act falls short in a number of areas. First, it requires verification mechanisms that are too burdensome for users and create unnecessary data privacy risks, including biometric or government ID standards. Second, the bill is over-inclusive with regard to the types of applications required to receive an age signal from the App Store. So it would require every app, regardless of its content or purpose, including weather apps, calculator apps, to receive age signals from app stores and require parental consent for minors to download it. It would restrict minors from downloading apps for news, the weather, educational purpose, and other lower-risk categories. It basically creates a morass where parents and children, every time they download an app, every time they update that app, are doing invasive age verification procedures that creates this scattershot compliance fatigue that actually ends up serving the purposes of the big tech companies because parents just throw up their hands. The bill though is also under-inclusive with regard to the types of app stores covered. It leaves out third-party app stores as well as app stores for virtual reality and gaming platforms. Now that's very convenient, as I said, this is a Meta markup, very convenient for Meta, which has pointed to its future as the metaverse. Of course they want to exempt virtual reality and gaming platforms because they don't want parents to know what's going on in there. Zuckerberg has already said that he wants to see kids have AI friends in the metaverse. Lastly and most importantly, this bill is just unconstitutional. In ruling against the Texas's version of the App Store Accountability Act, a judge noted that it would severely restrict access to a quote, vast universe of speech protected by the First Amendment. As my colleague from Massachusetts said, laws that get struck down by the courts don't protect anybody. Now my amendment, the bipartisan Parents Over Platforms Act, is the better approach. Its age assurance requirements are less burdensome for users and parents and it poses far less privacy risk than the App Store Accountability Act. The way it works is if you're a parent, you buy a phone for your child, you add your child's phone to the family account, you set your child's birthday, and that's it, set and forget. Thereafter, every time your child downloads an app, if it is an app that creates either an age-gated or age-differentiated experience, that app is liable for actually providing that age-gated or age-differentiated experience. If it's a gambling app for example and you're under 18, you can't access it. If it's a social media app and you're under 13 or hopefully someday under 16, can't access it. But the parents don't have to play keep up with the tech companies. They set that birthday one time and the age assurance signal in a privacy-protected manner is sent up through the firmware layer to the App Store thereafter. It also properly scopes the definitions of both app stores and covered applications to address those over-inclusive and under-inclusive problems that I mentioned earlier, so there's no loopholes for virtual reality and gaming that would benefit Meta. Finally, and unlike the App Store Accountability Act, my bill will survive strict scrutiny. It's a constitutional path forward on age verification so that we're not sitting here spinning our wheels in Congress just to have the courts strike it down. It does not restrict minors' access to the vast universe of speech by for example preventing them from accessing weather apps and news apps. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to oppose the App Store Accountability Act, and I would ask the chairman for his commitment to continue working on these issues as we've discussed.

Thank you. I'll I need a claim time. I'll claim time and it's a new amendment, so I don't have to. Mr. Chairman, I but I will I will claim time and then I'll yield to you if that's okay. So yes, as we talked before, we are going to continue to work to make sure we have every level we can that we can come to agreement that our kids are protected. So I will agree. So I will yield to the gentleman from Michigan to speak on the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The deceptively named Parents Over Platforms Act should be aptly named Platforms Over Parents Act. Specifically, the this bill or this amendment is unconstitutional. It only regulates apps that offer an age-differentiated experience. Another way to say it, regulates content. The Platforms Over Parents Act is not a serious attempt at empowering parents and protecting kids. It's built for litigation. The App Store Accountability Act is constitutional. While my bill is inspired by laws in Utah and Texas, which have been challenged by big tech lobbyists, these are in their earliest stages of litigation already. We've already made meaningful changes to this bill to strengthen its constitutionality further, removing exceptions in this bill. And frankly, if you need any further endorsement, my bill's a clear choice of parents. 4,500 parents and over 180 child safety organizations. Meanwhile, the Platforms Over Parents Act is supported by Google, Apple, and their trade associations. My bill requires privacy-preserving age verification at the App Store level, while the Platforms Over Parents Act relies largely on the antiquated self-reporting age method that is repeatedly failed to keep our children safe. My bill applies equally, equally across the board and fairly to all apps, providing consistent protections. The Platforms Over Parents amendment only covers apps that provide a different experience for children and adults. This creates a disincentive for platforms to provide safer age-appropriate experiences. Allowing children to enter into binding contracts with multi-billion dollar corporations is the wrong answer. Children cannot consent. Can we all agree to that? And parents have a right to know. We should also be able to agree to that. This bill does both. 82 percent of voters support the App Store Accountability Act, including 85 percent of parents. This bill transcends partisanship and that's what I've heard all day. Put partisanship behind us and move forward in the best interest of our children. 77 percent of Democrats and 90 percent of Republicans agree with this. 80 percent of independents agree with this bill. These are things that are common sense, it will survive scrutiny, and it's based upon the reality that we currently face. So again, Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to this to this amendment. When parents grant consent to allow their kids to download an app, the bill puts the app on notice that they're dealing with a minor, all in privacy-protected manner. By contrast, the Platforms Over Parents Act codifies the failed status quo where kids click through self-declared age boxes to access apps without parental permission. I urge my colleagues again to reject this amendment and support the underlying bill.

So it's back it's my time and and I can guarantee everybody in here that big tech, however you want to define it, is opposed to your bill, I can tell you that because I've we've all heard from them. So I will yield back and is there further discussion? Gentleman from California is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield some time to Congressman Auchincloss.

I appreciate it. A number of remarks in there that are inaccurate. Number one being that kids themselves can swipe through the birthday and age assurance signal, that's just false. Parents are in the driver's seat on this. But the number one thing I want to just zero in on, first of all, if this is a bipartisan approach, why is it not a bipartisan bill? It's a partisan bill, whereas my alternative is a bipartisan approach. But secondly, would the gentleman from Michigan care to comment about why his bill includes weather apps for intrusive age verification procedures but exempts virtual reality? Does the gentleman not think that virtual reality apps might pose a risk to youth online and should in fact be subject to age signals, or does he trust that the Mark Zuckerberg metaverse is going to be a place where kids can thrive without any parental oversight?

Mark Zuckerberg's a crook who should be held accountable.

So why are you exempting, why is the gentleman from Michigan exempting his metaverse from this bill?

Because we're not exempting them from the bill.

They are.

That we are not exempting them from this bill. We are going to be working together to address that issue. But one bill cannot, I was asked a question and I'm answering it. But one bill cannot solve all the problems that have been broken by the status quo.

I'm going to reclaim my time. Right now this bill, okay, there you go. Can I ask the, can I ask the counsel, under this bill's, the way this bill is drafted, does it create an exemption for third-party app stores that are virtual reality app stores? Does it cover virtual reality app stores?

Sir, there is no definition of third-party app store or third-party service provider.

I don't know what that answer means. What I can say is, and as the gentleman from Michigan affirmed because he said he was going to be working on this, is as this bill is drafted, virtual reality apps are totally exempt, as are by the way sideloaded apps or website access or browser accessed apps. This is a meta-sized loophole. They literally renamed the company Meta because they believe in the metaverse and they want every kid to be putting on an Oculus headset and go into the metaverse and make AI bot friends. And that's, that is Mr. Zuckerberg's ideal for a dystopian future for our children to grow up in. And that is why this is the preferred bill for Meta because it exempts exactly their business model. My bill expressly prevents that from happening. It makes clear that, hey, if you want to download a weather app, that's fine. If you're trying to download Meta's online virtual reality app, that has to be liable for the age signal. I yield back to the gentleman from California.

Thank you and I yield back. Thank you, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Is there any further discussion of the amendment? Yes, the gentleman from Louisiana. Gentleman yields back. Is there any further discussion of the amendment? Gentleman from Louisiana.

You know, we keep going back and forth whether it's this bill or others, and we're picking winners and losers, whether it is tech or trial lawyers. And again, neither are the culprit independently. Tech companies bring positive things to the table. But what we're attempting to do in haste is ignoring the voices of all the parents, of all the advocates. I again urge us to pump our brakes and let's get this right. To demonize either side is not wise. Technology when applied appropriately is not bad, in fact it's very good. Tech companies by themselves are not bad, loopholes are. Forgiving them for not tightening the loopholes and making sure that we're protecting our young people is bad. Moving hastily through these measures without carefully exploring all of the ramifications or as we say in these bodies, unintended consequences. When we move too fast, when we ignore the voices of the victims, when we fail to look at the science, when we fail to work together. We clump everything together, the good, the bad, the ugly, and we move it forward for the sake of doing something. That's not smart. We need to be working with tech, we need to be working with advocates, we need to be working Democrats and Republicans together to not come up with a fast solution that fails, but a solid solution that encompasses all of the risk. Again, I ask my colleagues, pump the brakes and let's do this right. Not fast, not party driven, not partisan, but right, inclusive, and secure. I yield.

Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Seeing none, the vote occurs on the amendment. A roll call has been requested and the clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Latta.

No.

Mr. Latta votes no. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Hudson. Mr. Carter of Georgia.

No.

Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Mr. Palmer. Mr. Dunn.

No.

Mr. Dunn votes no. Mr. Crenshaw. Mr. Joyce.

No.

Mr. Joyce votes no. Mr. Weber.

No.

Mr. Weber votes no. Mr. Allen. Mr. Balderson.

No.

Mr. Balderson votes no. Mr. Fulcher.

Votes no.

Mr. Fulcher votes no. Mr. Pfluger. Mrs. Harshbarger.

No.

Mrs. Harshbarger votes no. Mrs. Miller-Meeks.

No.

Mrs. Miller-Meeks votes no. Mrs. Cammack. Mr. Obernolte.

No.

Mr. Obernolte votes no. Mr. James.

No.

Mr. James votes no. Mr. Bentz.

No.

Mr. Bentz votes no. Mrs. Houchin. Mr. Fry. Ms. Lee.

No.

Ms. Lee votes no. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Kean.

No.

Mr. Kean votes no. Mr. Rulli.

No.

Mr. Rulli votes no. Mr. Evans.

No.

Mr. Evans votes no. Mr. Goldman.

No.

Mr. Goldman votes no. Mrs. Fedorchak.

No.

Mrs. Fedorchak votes no. Mr. Pallone.

Aye.

Mr. Pallone votes aye. Ms. DeGette.

Aye.

Ms. DeGette votes aye. Ms. Schakowsky.

Aye.

Ms. Schakowsky votes aye. Ms. Matsui.

Aye.

Ms. Matsui votes aye. Ms. Castor. Mr. Tonko.

Aye.

Mr. Tonko votes aye. Ms. Clarke.

Aye.

Ms. Clarke votes aye. Mr. Ruiz.

Aye.

Mr. Ruiz votes aye. Mr. Peters.

Aye.

Mr. Peters votes aye. Mrs. Dingell.

Aye.

Mrs. Dingell votes aye. Mr. Veasey. Ms. Kelly.

Aye.

Ms. Kelly votes aye. Ms. Barragán.

Aye.

Ms. Barragán votes aye. Mr. Soto.

Aye.

Mr. Soto votes aye. Ms. Schrier.

Aye.

Ms. Schrier votes aye. Ms. Trahan.

Aye.

Ms. Trahan votes aye. Ms. Fletcher.

Aye.

Ms. Fletcher votes aye. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. Auchincloss.

Aye.

Mr. Auchincloss votes aye. Mr. Carter of Louisiana.

Aye.

Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Menendez.

Aye.

Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mr. Mullin.

Aye.

Mr. Mullin votes aye. Mr. Landsman. Ms. McClellan.

Aye.

Ms. McClellan votes aye. Chairman Guthrie.

No.

Chairman Guthrie votes no. Is there anyone seeking to be recorded? Mr. Palmer. Mr. Palmer is not recorded.

Palmer votes no.

Mr. Griffith.

Griffith votes no.

Mr. Griffith votes no. Mr. Bilirakis.

No.

Mr. Bilirakis votes no. Mr. Langworthy.

No.

Mr. Langworthy votes no. Mr. Allen.

Allen votes no.

Mr. Allen votes no. Mr. Pfluger.

No.

Mr. Pfluger votes no. Is there any, Ms. Castor? Mr. Veasey? Mr. Veasey's not recorded.

Aye.

Mr. Veasey votes aye. Mrs. Cammack.

No.

Mrs. Cammack votes no. Ms. Castor.

Aye.

Ms. Castor votes aye. Mr. Landsman. Mr. Landsman is not recorded.

Aye.

Mr. Landsman votes aye. Is anyone seeking to be recorded? Clerk will report.

So we're going to go right into another roll call so everybody can stay here. So the clerk will report.

Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there are 23 ayes and 26 nos.

The amendment is not agreed to. Is there further amendments? If no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment in nature of a substitute. We're going to do the amendment. So it'll be a voice vote. All those in favor shall signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those no.

No.

The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. The question now occurs on adopting H.R. 3149 as amended and a roll call has been requested and the clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Latta.

Aye.

Mr. Latta votes aye. Mr. Griffith.

Aye.

Mr. Griffith votes aye. Mr. Bilirakis.

Aye.

Mr. Bilirakis votes aye. Mr. Hudson. Mr. Carter of Georgia.

Aye.

Mr. Carter of Georgia votes aye. Mr. Palmer.

Aye.

Mr. Palmer votes aye. Mr. Dunn.

Aye.

Mr. Dunn votes aye. Mr. Crenshaw. Mr. Joyce.

Aye.

Mr. Joyce votes aye. Mr. Weber.

Aye.

Mr. Weber votes aye. 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.

Aye.

Mrs. Miller-Meeks votes aye. Mrs. Cammack.

Aye.

Mrs. Cammack votes aye. Mr. Obernolte.

Aye.

Mr. Obernolte votes aye. Mr. James.

Aye.

Mr. James votes aye. Mr. Bentz.

Aye.

Mr. Bentz votes aye. Mrs. Houchin. Mr. Fry. Ms. Lee.

Aye.

Ms. Lee votes aye. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Kean.

Aye.

Mr. Kean votes aye. Mr. Rulli.

Aye.

Mr. Rulli votes aye. Mr. Evans.

Aye.

Mr. Evans votes aye. Mr. Goldman.

Aye.

Mr. Goldman votes aye. Mrs. Fedorchak.

Aye.

Mrs. Fedorchak votes aye. Mr. Pallone.

No.

Mr. Pallone votes no. Ms. DeGette.

No.

Ms. DeGette votes no. Ms. Schakowsky.

No.

Ms. Schakowsky votes no. Ms. Matsui.

No.

Ms. Matsui votes no. Ms. Castor.

No.

Ms. Castor votes no. Mr. Tonko.

No.

Mr. Tonko votes no. Ms. Clarke.

No.

Ms. Clarke votes no. Mr. Ruiz.

No.

Mr. Ruiz votes no. Mr. Peters.

No.

Mr. Peters votes no. Mrs. Dingell.

No.