American Privacy Rights Act, Kids Online Safety Act Marked Up in House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee

On Thursday, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce convened to markup the American Privacy Rights Act of 2024 (APRA) and the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). APRA is Congress’s latest attempt to pass a federal comprehensive data privacy bill in the US after years of false starts. KOSA, which has gone through numerous iterations in the Senate, would require social media companies to take steps to better protect children on their platforms.

Just 36 hours before the hearing, a new version of APRA was published—a move that frustrated several subcommittee members who hoped to review the 174-page bill more closely. The majority of the markup was spent discussing APRA, comparing versions of the bill, and discussing the ways in which the revised bill still fell short for some of the House lawmakers. Both APRA and KOSA passed out of the subcommittee by voice vote, with KOSA advancing by unanimous consent.

The APRA Markup

In June 2022, the House Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) introduced the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (ADPPA). After multiple rounds of markups, the bill passed out of the full committee with a 53-2 vote. However, it never received any floor time under then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, likely due to California lawmakers’ concerns that the law would preempt states’ data privacy laws. Two years later, and seemingly more committed to pushing a comprehensive data privacy bill forward, Committee Chair and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) unveiled draft legislation in April for the American Privacy Rights Act. The Act, which would establish a national consumer data privacy standard, aims to eliminate the “existing patchwork of state comprehensive data privacy laws.” It also establishes robust enforcement mechanisms for violators, including a private right of action, and sets standards for data minimization.

Data minimization is one policy component of APRA about which subcommittee members seemed to be in full agreement. “Data minimization must be the foundation of any privacy bill,” Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) said Thursday. While he was “pleased” that strong data minimization requirements were in the initial APRA discussion draft, he encouraged Chair McMorris Rodgers to clarify that advertisers are not exempt and research that benefits the public is permitted.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) similarly applauded the “bipartisan progress” in finding solutions for sensitive data categories and data minimization. “These efforts are needed to protect consumer privacy. We must continue to focus on ensuring that the data minimization provisions in this bill allow only the collection, use, retention, and transfer of necessary data,” she said.

More generally, lawmakers, experts, and civil society have come out overwhelmingly in favor of APRA’s data minimization provisions. While these requirements were also a core concept in the ADPPA, the current legislation eliminates a two-tiered structure in favor of a single standard. While some states have begun including data minimization in their privacy proposals, some find the language generic and even unhelpful, especially when companies can obtain consent through privacy policies often glazed over by consumers. “The data minimization thing is the ballgame here, and it really does finally get us past a notice and choice regime,” said Joseph Jerome, assistant professor at the University of Tampa, in a call hosted by Tech Policy Press. Jerome believes the language in APRA is potentially paradigm-shifting.

“I like the approach of thinking of privacy as a matter of permissible purposes. It's called data minimization in the bill, but it really is in that tradition of saying, in general, it's not a good idea to take people's personal information and use it for business purposes, but if you've got a good reason, okay,” said Mark MacCarthy, a senior fellow at Georgetown Law’s Institute for Technology Law and Policy, also in the Tech Policy Press call. There are two different approaches to data minimization: setting a standard for deciding whether a data collection purpose is legitimate, or listing a series of permissible purposes. This, MacCarthy said, feels “a little bit confining because you can't have the complete list at any one moment.” He thinks giving the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the authority to extend the list is the most “important and productive” approach.

However, lawmakers appear to be still struggling to find agreement on the issue of preemption. Preemption is as complicated as it is controversial, and is a sticking point for APRA or any potential national privacy policy. It is also one of the main reasons many lawmakers support Congress’ effort to pass APRA. In his opening statement, Subcommittee Chair Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) noted how a national preemptive standard would eliminate the patchwork of state laws and provide businesses with more certainty. Chair McMorris Rodgers also argued that a single federal policy would be less of a burden for small businesses than complying with individual state laws. Preemption will benefit consumers in states with less stringent state privacy laws as well. Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL) offered support for APRA preempting his own state’s law, pointing out that privacy legislation passed in Florida "is not quite up to where it needs to be."

There are several different approaches to preemption. For instance, there is 'floor preemption,' which sets a minimum standard at the federal level and lets states provide additional protections, as well as 'conflict preemption,' which allows the federal law to displace state law due to the Constitution’s supremacy clause. The way APRA is currently written, the legislation provides that no state may "adopt, maintain, enforce, or continue in effect any law, regulation, rule, or requirement covered by the provisions" of APRA or any regulations promulgated under it. The scope and impact of this express preemption clause is unclear, especially in states with existing privacy laws and other consumer protection laws, including proposed laws seeking to regulate AI.

For example, the state of Illinois has enacted several privacy-focused laws in recent years, including the nation’s first law protecting biometric information. Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL) expressed concern regarding the impact of APRA on state attorney general enforcement and limiting an attorney general's investigative abilities under a state’s consumer protection authority.

Another area of concern for many lawmakers was how APRA would protect children. In a surprise to many, COPPA 2.0 was tacked onto the end of the revised version of APRA. This provision would limit the "online collection, use, disclosure, and deletion of children’s personal information." Many lawmakers were not, however, happy with the stripped-down version that made it into the discussion draft.

"Unfortunately, at this point, this is not COPPA 2.0 in the discussion draft," Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) said Thursday. "It has the skin but not the meat and the bones." In April, the Michigan representative introduced a House version of COPPA 2.0 alongside his subcommittee colleague Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL). He suggested advancing COPPA 2.0 separately if more provisions, like raising the age of protection to 16, aren’t added to APRA. Rep. Castor similarly expressed disappointment. "It [APRA] removes COPPA 2.0's knowledge standard entirely, and would now only apply to websites and apps that are directed to children, excluding those platforms that know a user is a minor," Rep. Castor said. She additionally criticized APRA for using a weak definition of targeted advertising.

The KOSA Markup

The KOSA markup saw more consensus among the lawmakers. Yet there were some criticisms of KOSA, including its "duty of care" provision, and insufficient measures to enable independent researcher access to platforms’ data.

A duty of care standard requires online companies to take reasonable steps to mitigate any harm their products may cause to children. Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA) expressed "serious concern," however, about Congress’ failure to both define what "reasonable" is and outline the steps needed to mitigate harms. "I think that's lazy legislating," the California Republican said. "I think that we are abdicating our responsibility as legislators if we fail to define those terms, because we're just punting to the courts, and people are going to wind up in court for years and years arguing about what our intent was." Rep. Pallone argued that adopting a duty of care could cause additional harm if social media companies begin over-filtering their content over fear of legal risks. "As a result, some young people could lose access to helpful and even life-saving content," he said.

Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA) used Thursday to take aim at the Senate version of KOSA. She said she was "extremely disappointed" to see the original section on independent research facilitation struck in favor of "a limited series of studies that hardly provide a shred of accountability and insight." The original section "would have allowed qualified independent researchers to demand data from online platforms to study how their recommendation algorithms, their daily login rewards, and other design features are affecting our children," Rep. Trahan said.

What’s Next

Both bills will now go to the full House Commerce Committee, where their chance for advancement is uncertain. Even though both bills now move on, they did so through a voice vote, with many subcommittee members, particularly with regard to APRA, stressing that the legislation was a work in progress. Many lawmakers still have yet to decide on how they will vote, and said the full committee markup will be a large determinant of whether they choose to move APRA forward. “I’m not yet sure that I can support this privacy legislation,” Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL) said on Thursday.

APRA has yet to be introduced in the Senate. The Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security similarly hosted a hearing earlier this month on “Strengthening Data Security to Protect Consumers.” There, witnesses repeatedly pointed to the need for a national data privacy standard, and some regarded data privacy and minimization as a security principle. “If you do not have the data, you cannot lose it,” said witness James Lee, Chief Operating Officer of the Identity Theft Resource Center. Preemption concerns were again raised in the Senate hearing. While “heartened” by the reemergence of a “credible proposal,” one area of concern for witness Prem Trivedi, policy director at the Open Technology Institute, is the “scope of FCC [Federal Communications Commission] preemption in APRA.”

Some Senate legislators have also expressed strong opposition to APRA. This includes Senate Commerce Committee Ranking Member Ted Cruz (R-TX), who said in April that he won’t support a bill that includes a private right of action or provisions that give additional authority to the FTC. "In particular, I cannot support any data privacy bill that empowers trial lawyers, strengthens Big Tech by imposing crushing new regulatory costs on upstart competitors or gives unprecedented power to the FTC to become referees of internet speech,” Sen. Cruz tweeted following the bill’s introduction.

KOSA appears to have less opposition. In the Senate, the legislation currently has 68 co-sponsors. In February 2024, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), who introduced KOSA, revised it to assuage concerns regarding its potential impact on LGBTQ youth. In response, several prominent LGBTQ groups withdrew their opposition to the legislation. Still, some civil society groups remain opposed. On May 7, 2024, the ACLU joined the industry groups in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) opposing “the inclusion of the Kids Online Safety Act in legislation reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).” Ahead of the markup, five civil society groups also sent a letter to the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology expressing their concerns that the House KOSA bill “will be misused to target marginalized communities and politically divisive information.”

Related reading:

• The American Privacy Rights Act of 2024 Explained: What Does the Proposed Legislation Say, and What Will it Do?
• Why APRA is a Step in the Right Direction, and What Can Be Done to Make It Even Better
• Can the American Privacy Rights Act Accomplish Data Minimization?
• Overcoming Fear and Frustration with the Kids Online Safety Act

Transcript

What follows is a lightly edited transcript of the markup.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Thank you again. Good morning everyone. Welcome to today's subcommittee and markup where we will consider three significant subcommittee priority pieces of legislation to protect Americans data privacy rights, protect kids online and preserve access to AM radio. I want to thank all the subcommittee members for their input and feedback on these topics and I'm looking forward to continuing productive conversations in a bipartisan manner to refine these bills as we move through the legislative process. We have a historic opportunity to advance legislation that will end the patchwork and finally provide a federal standard to govern how American's personal information is collected, stored, retained, and transferred. The American Privacy Rights Act, which is sponsored by our chair Cathy McMorris Rogers is the strongest consumer data privacy and security framework to date. It provides businesses with certainty through a national preemptive standard, secures individual liberties throughout strong data minimization provisions and cements America's global leadership through data security provisions that warn consumers when their information is being collected and shared with our foreign adversaries like China and Russia.

For years, Congress has long tried to thread the needle when it comes to getting a national data privacy bill enacted into law. Given the many differences in approach from both sides of the political spectrum, I want to applaud Chair Rodgers of course and again Chair Cantwell in the Senate for their tireless efforts to move forward with a framework that strikes this critical balance as well as all the members on both sides of the aisle that have provisions included in the draft today. I understand many stakeholders have continued to engage with every office on these requests, their requests, and I look forward to hearing from my colleagues about how we can continue to incorporate that feedback. I'm thankful for all the constructive comments we received up to this point. This is certainly not the last opportunity to deliberate and refine this draft further, but time is of the essence.

I want to repeat that it's worth repeating. Time is of the essence, so let's continue to move this process forward to protect Americans privacy rights, promote individual freedoms and civil liberties and secure data from abuse by bad actors. In addition to APRA, I'm proud that we are also considering my bill, HR 7891, the Kids Online Safety Act. I'm thankful to Representative Castor for her partnership on this particular bill as well as the many colleagues on this subcommittee who've co-sponsored our legislation. Sadly, in the face of an unprecedented youth mental health crisis in this nation, big tech has continued to turn a blind eye in my opinion, to harms perpetuated on their online platforms. Congress has been forced to step in to ensure children and parents have the safeguards, tools, and transparency measures they need to stay. To have our kids stay safe, they need to stay safe.

Folks, KOSA requires the prevention and mitigation of harms to minors such as promotion of suicide, depression, substance abuse, sexual exploitation, and illegal drug sales such as fentanyl. Too often we've seen the design features of social media fuel these problems rather than prevent them. We've had hearings on this. This legislation is not perfect. I understand that and I'm hopeful. Conversations today can illuminate how we can better establish needed protections for children. Lastly, the subcommittee will be taking up a bipartisan bill. I'm leading with a representative, the Ranking Member of the full committee, Representative Pallone the AM Radio for Every Vehicle act. At our legislative hearing, we heard from our witnesses about the importance of having a robust emergency alert and public safety communications infrastructure, further rule and underserved. Americans still enjoy listening to AM radio broadcasts for their diverse viewpoints. I know my constituents do, given AM radio's significant reach as a medium, much of it taking place in vehicles. We must ensure it remains a readily available option for all Americans, particularly as we approach hurricane season. I'm proud to partner with the Ranking Member on this initiative and look forward to advancing it through the subcommittee today. In closing, I look forward to working with all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle today to get these critical bills across the finish line and I yell back the balance of my time and now I recognize the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, Ms. Schakowsky, my good friend for five minutes for her opening statement.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL):

Thank you. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Much of what you've said is what I would just echo. I am very glad to see that we are moving forward. We are continuing to make sure that consumers who have been so frustrated for too long being so uncertain about their privacy online and I see progress made in the draft. Let me just highlight a couple of things that I think are so important in this new bill that we're going to be considering today will be a one click to make sure that data brokers can be taken away from the consumers who don't want their information shared. This is very, very important. I think it's a big step forward. Secondly, in this issue, what we're discussing today that we are going to ban targeting of children and teens in a much more aggressive way. So these are certainly important things that we're doing.

Big tech has already on the senate side apologized for what it's done to children. Apologies are just not enough, so we have to take action and we will. But I do want to say that I am also disappointed that there is not the consideration of making sure that we are protecting consumers for their biometric data. By that I mean fingerprints and facial recognition and we know that once that information, for example about facial recognition, it can be used to go after people because you can't change that information that's forever. And it also ends up with discrimination that we have seen that people, particularly people of color sometimes get accused of things that they're not. So we need to control this biometric data and I also want to make sure that we are doing again everything that we can to protect our children. So finally, let me just say that I would agree on the issue of AM radio. Oh, before I do that, let me ask Chair Castor, excuse me, I'm sorry. Morris Rodgers. I'm sorry Kathy, I got the Kathy in my mind if I could ask Chair Rodgers if we could consider discussion about this issue of the biometric data, I would really appreciate it and if you could tell me that we could work together in order to do that. Chairman, could we agree on that

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

The chair is recognized?

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

Yes. Yes. To the Ranking Member of the subcommittee. I'm committed to working together on addressing the concerns around the collection of biometric data as well as the continuing efforts to make this bill as strong as possible and welcome input from everyone would like to work with you specifically on

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL):

That issue. Thank you so much. And we have, that's the one wonderful thing about this committee. We have been working together but I just did want to end with the issue of A, of AM radio. We heard a wonderful hearing on AM radio here in this committee and one of the things that was so startling to me was the degree the number of people who do rely on AM radio not just for the information that they need to protect themselves from danger, but we know from AARP that are a lot of seniors who use a AM radio, but we also heard from Native Americans that almost exclusively AM radio and cars has been their lifeblood and so we want to make sure that we protect AM radio. It seemed pretty unanimous in the committee and I'm hoping that we can move forward on that and with that I will yield back.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Thank you very much. I thank the Ranking Member. She yields back. I now recognize the chair of the full committee, Mrs. Rodgers for her five minutes for an opening statement.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Good morning everyone. Our personal identity is at the very core of what makes us human. It drives us to achieve the impossible and inspires us to pursue our goals and dreams. The ability to express our individual identity helps define who we are and it deepens our ties to our families and our communities. Encouraging individualism and identity is something that is uniquely American, something the founders envisioned and fought for. A society that's fiercely individual where people are free to think, speak and live their lives the way they want. Many believe that the internet could empower the individual even more by creating new ways for people and businesses to connect, innovate and share information. Unfortunately, trust has been broken. Instead, over time our identity has been slowly eroded. Freedom to think for ourselves, manipulated and big tech is capturing more and more data to surveil and control our lives.

Americans should be in control of how information is disclosed and it should be voluntary, not coerced. If the founders were here today, they would know as we know that this digital tyranny is not the American dream. The American Privacy Rights Act is an opportunity for a reset one that can help return us to the American dream our founders envisioned. It gives people the right to control their personal information online. Something that the American people overwhelmingly want, they're tired of having their personal information abused for profit, and right now a person's location, for instance, can be shared without their knowledge or permission by apps on their phone. This bill stops those apps from sharing or selling this data without permission. If a person searches the internet about something personal, something they want kept private, that information could be tracked with hidden pixels and shared without them knowing about it.

This bill keeps people's search history private. If someone buys a pair of shoes online, they almost instantly are bombarded with ads across the platforms they use. The American Privacy Rights Act gives the power back to the people by equipping them with the knowledge of how their data is being used to monetize, manipulate, and exploit them. This legislation, it is so important and it is especially foundational and important for protecting our kids online. The average American teenager spends 4.8 hours a day scrolling social media platforms. I'm a mom, I have three young kids, I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's my biggest fear of what's going to happen online with my kids because I don't trust what's happening at all. Our kids scroll companies collect nearly every data point imaginable to build profiles on them and keep them addicted. They intentionally target children with dangerous and life-threatening content.

At our hearing last month, we heard from a young woman, her name was Ava, who shared how big tech weaponized her data collecting this arsenal of data and exploited her vulnerabilities. Ava's story is just one of countless we've heard from kids, young adults and families across the country. This legislation gets to the root cause of these problems. By minimizing the collection and exploitation of our data, it serves as a strong foundation from which to layer on other important policies to protect kids online. Like the Kids Online Safety Act, which I'm excited that we're considering today. This draft includes key provisions from the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act and I want to thank reps Walberg and Castor and Senators Markey and Cassidy for working with us. We can achieve stronger protections for people while continuing to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. 18 states now have comprehensive data privacy laws, which means 18 different sets of rules that are growing.

A small business or startup is forced to navigate ensuring compliance is costly. Just last week I met with a company who told me that they're going to be forced to pull out of certain states. It's one that you would all recognize because they simply cannot comply with the conflicting standards. Our bill would end this patchwork today. We'll also be marking up HR 84 49 the AM radio for every Vehicle Act led by Reps. Bilirakis and Pallone. Millions across the country rely on AM radio for critical information, especially during public emergencies. And as vital, we preserve this resource for Americans. In the nearly 230 year history of this committee, we've established a rich tradition of taking on hard problems and delivering solutions for the people and I believe we have a moment here to change the status quo and reset what the online ecosystem looks like. The American Privacy Rights Act is a common sense bipartisan by camera proposal and I'm grateful for Senator Cantwell for working with me on this landmark legislation as well as Ranking Member Palone who's been a trusted partner over the years as we have worked together on privacy and worked to improve this current draft. As John Dingle has been known to say there hasn't been a perfect law since Moses came down from the mountain.

I urge my colleagues to advance this legislation today. I look forward to continuing to work with all the members, all the stakeholders to further perfect this bill. Before it comes for full committee markup, I yield back.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

I thank the chair. Now I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, the Ranking Member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone for five minutes for an opening statement.

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ):

Thank you Chairman Bilirakis. Today the subcommittee is considering three bills, an updated draft of the American Privacy Rights Act discussion draft, the Kids' Online Safety Act and the AM radio for every vehicle act, which I introduced with Chairman Bilirakis earlier this week. Our bipartisan legislation on AM radios will ensure that all new vehicles come equipped with AM radios. We know firsthand that AM radios can be lifesavers in emergency situations when other means of communications such as cell phone towers may be down am radio waves are uniquely resilient and can travel long distances, making them a valuable communications tool in emergencies including when we used AM radio to help coordinate relief efforts in my district when Hurricane Sandy ger our community. So I want to thank chairman Bilirakis, chairwoman Rodgers for working with me on this important bill and I look forward to advancing it today.

I also appreciate the hard work that went into preparing the updated draft of the American Privacy Rights Act that we'll consider today. We're long overdue for a comprehensive national privacy law that puts people back in control of their personal data and today we're taking another significant step toward that goal. I will discuss the bill, the privacy bill further when it's brought up, but I do want to commend Chair Rodgers for inserting language that seeks to adjust several of my and Democrats highest priorities, but there is still more work to do and I know we can continue to work to further strengthen the bill as we advance to a full committee markup. It's absolutely critical that we get this done for the American people and I'll also discuss KOSA when it's called up by the chairman. So in closing, I'm grateful to members on both sides of the aisle for their hard work that helped get us here today and I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Thanks so much. I appreciate that and let's get started. The chair calls out the American Privacy Rights Act discussion draft and asks the clerk to report.

Clerk:

Discussion draft American Privacy Rights Act of 2024. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America and Congress assembled…

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Does anyone seek recognition to speak on the underlying bill? Chair Rodgers, you're recognized for five minutes.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm encouraged that we continue to move closer to putting people back in control of their data by advancing this latest draft of the American Privacy Rights Act. I'd like to again thank Ranking Member Pallone, subcommittee chair Bilirakis, subcommittee, Ranking Member Schakowsky for their leadership, their hard work, and their partnership in this effort. Over the past several congresses, I've been working diligently to develop comprehensive data privacy legislation to protect all Americans no matter their age or where they live. A comprehensive data privacy law is foundational to protecting our kids. We know that if we stop their personal information from being fed to big tech, we can cut off the harms at the root and when complimented with other critical kids safety legislation, we can fundamentally change the online ecosystem in a way that ensures our kids are safe and are having a wellbeing.

The draft bill before us today represents input from members of this subcommittee, hundreds of constructive stakeholders and countless hours of good faith discussions, revisions, and exchanges. Today is not the end of the road, but it certainly is another milestone in giving Americans the privacy rights they want and deserve. My sincere thank you goes out to all the members, companies, associations, advocacy organizations that were thoughtful and constructive these past few weeks as we've worked to refine and perfect this important bill. We've intentionally kept this latest version of the legislation a discussion draft and we remain committed to continuing to work to get this right between now and the full committee. Sadly, there are still many who will do everything they can to slow down or kill this legislation in order to maintain the status quo. They hide behind advocacy groups and associations, engage in scare tactics and refuse to negotiate in good faith.

And we've come to expect this from the likes of big tech and debt to brokers and hundreds of advocacy groups, they bankroll to do their bidding. This bill was carefully crafted to go after bad actors and the business of big data, not main street businesses or innovators, to say otherwise is an effort to fundamentally misunderstand the legislation or is disingenuous in the desire to achieve a solution. For decades. We have repeatedly heard calls from American businesses to have a national data privacy standard. Now we have a patchwork of state laws that's unsustainable and it's going to crush small business and medium-sized businesses and it's going to harm American competitiveness. This bill achieves all of that while also giving our kids long overdue protections online. My appeal to those who have been sounding the alarm that Congress must act is to join us. Join us in getting this signed into law or start being honest that they really don't want a viable bipartisan solution.

Or perhaps what they really don't want to admit is that they don't want to see this bill succeed because it would limit what information they can collect on people, how they can use it, how they can monetize it. For those I have a clear message, it's time you stop. It's time you stop exploiting American's privacy to line your own pockets. It's time to stop harvesting our sensitive data and profiling us and it's time to stop exploiting our children. We are committed. I am committed to plowing the hard ground necessary to legislate and continue working on behalf of the American people who are urging Congress to act. So let's move this legislation forward and let's continue working together in good faith to get this bill onto the president's desk. I yield back.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

The chair yields back. Now we'll recognize the member for his five minutes to speak on the underlying bill. You recognize full Ranking Member of the full committee.

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. For decades we sought to safeguard America's fundamental right to privacy with a series of fragmented sector by sector laws and anyone with a smartphone, laptop or tablet can tell you that we're not getting the job done. Data is a valuable commodity. Big tech and shadowy data brokers generate billions of dollars of revenue by collecting, using and selling Americans personal information. Oftentimes without them even knowing the data is being collected and monetized and without a comprehensive national privacy framework in place, the American people are powerless to stop this invasion of their privacy. As the privacy abuses mount, the American people are calling on Congress to act. 73% of adults believe that they have little or no control over their data. Nearly 90% of Americans are concerned about the social media platforms processing personal information about kids. For several years this subcommittee has been tackling this challenge and I believe we all want to put the American people back in control of their personal data and I'm committed to continuing to work to finally enshrine robust privacy protections and law.

This current draft of the American Privacy Rights Act or APRA was only released 36 hours ago. It's important that we give legislation of this significance and complexity time for review and feedback. At last month's legislative hearing, I advocated for crucial modifications to strengthen APRA. I called for specific protections for children and teens, including explicitly prohibiting targeted advertising to kids who often cannot distinguish between advertising and non-advertising content. I encouraged the chair to add a provision requiring companies to identify, assess, and mitigate privacy risks with respect to kids. I also advocated for cracking down on the shadowy world of data brokers by establishing a universal deletion mechanism, empowering consumers to direct all data brokers to delete their information in one fell swoop. I called for the discussion draft to ensure that artificial intelligence and personal data cannot be weaponized to deprive people of the equal opportunity to find housing, look for a job, or receive information about goods and services.

And as I explained, the bill should reflect what we have learned about AI, particularly generative AI. Since ADPPA moved through this committee two years ago, a data minimization must be the foundation of any privacy bill as it limits the amount of personal information entities collect, possess, retain, or transfer to only what is necessary to provide the products and services requested by the consumer. So I'm pleased that strong data minimization requirements were in the initial a r discussion draft and encouraged a chair to clarify that advertisements are not exempt from the data minimization requirement and that research that benefits the public is permitted. So I want to commend Chair Rodgers for aiding languages and seeking to address several of these highest priorities. I'm actively reviewing a modified language to determine if my overarching policy goals have been met, but there's still more work to be done. We must ensure that APRA acknowledges that kids are uniquely susceptible to privacy harms and deserve tailored privacy protections.

We need to work with stakeholders to make sure the definitions of targeted advertising and other types of advertising are right and we are preventing abusive use and sharing of consumer's data for advertising purposes. It should also not remove the FCC's authority to preserve the reliability of our communications networks, promote competition and protect consumers from illegal robocalls and other abuses. So great progress has been made at this point, but we're not there yet. I have no doubt that we can get this done together. Chair Rodgers and Chair Schakowsky and everyone on this committee have a strong track record of producing results to the American people. Nobody has a better record of reigning in big tech. In the past month alone, we've had two bills signed into law: a bill requiring TikTok to divest from the Chinese Communist Party and my legislation restricting the sale of American's data to foreign adversaries. So I look forward to hearing from my colleagues and stakeholders so we can make the changes necessary to get this discussion draft over the finish line because it's long past time we give the American people back control of the personal data I yield back. Mr. Chairman,

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it and I want to thank the gentleman for last term getting a similar bill out of the full committee. So we're going to move forward and get this across the finish line with the leadership of our great chair Rodgers. I now recognize myself for five minutes to speak on the bill. As was mentioned previously, we have an opportunity to fundamentally change the way we conduct business and activity on the internet ecosystem and can reclaim the rights of Americans who have too long been taken advantage of by big tech companies who use and sell their information without their consent. The American Privacy Rights Act will ensure that no matter what state you live in, you have a guaranteed right to online data privacy and security. I want to thank, again, Chair Rodgers and her team. We've got a tremendous staff here on E&C for their work and her work of course on this legislative draft and I hope we can continue to move this bill along through the process.

I'm asking each one of my subcommittee colleagues to support this particular effort and hope that we can continue to engage in a productive manner to improve the bill. Further, the American people overwhelmingly agree we must enact a national privacy law and in the practice of data brokers and online platforms manipulating, selling and abusing our information without our consent. This bill ends the patchwork of state data privacy laws through a federal standard and requires significant transparency and accountability for covered entities regarding the right to collect, use, store and transfer individuals data. The bill gives individuals the freedom and control for how they like their data to be accessed, giving consumers true choice about how they'd prefer to see advertisements engage with others on social networks and conduct e-commerce. Further, APRA would stop discriminatory measures against individuals using their personal information and require impact assessments about algorithms and their use, preventing manipulation of Americans by big tech or worse by our foreign adversaries.

It provides significant data security standards to protect against data breaches and cyber threats such as hacking, requiring businesses to maintain responsibility for their practices and their actions. We have made significant improvements in this version of the draft, including refinements about data collected through the clinical trial process, clarified language on customer loyalty programs, ensuring mainstream retains that valuable option and a full prohibition on targeted advertising to minors under the age of 17.

I also want to give special recognition to my good friend and vice chairman of the subcommittee, this particular one, Tim Walberg from the great state of Michigan for his steadfast leadership and tireless efforts that have spent years with regards to reforming children's online privacy and this updated version of the comprehensive privacy bill we included as a new Title II on reflecting Mr. Walberg's priority to advance an update for the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act and we're improving upon that as well. We remain committed to continuing to work with him and Representative Castor and others on this language in a bipartisan manner. So we've made a lot of progress and we've got to continue and I'm an SEC guy, but let's move those chains. I know that's a big, tender phrase, but that's the truth. So I thank the full chair committee Chair Rodgers for her historic work on this and again, I yell back and we're going to hear from the Michigan guy pretty soon, but I yell back and now Representative Soto for his five minutes.

Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL):

Thank you Mr. Chair. Here we go again. A major comprehensive privacy bill before us and Americans are counting us, they're counting on us to protect their data online. I fear many have even given up feeling like Congress just can't get the job done and this is exactly why we're here today to make sure we're protecting our families and our data. When you look at the provisions in there, data minimization is key. People have a reasonable expectation that the data collected is going to be related and within the scope of the services that they're asking for online. It defines authorized uses of data as well so that businesses know what they're safe to be able to use. Protection of personal data. When you think of everything from our biometrics to literally our location that our cell phones define our calendars, healthcare data, so many different things right now, there's no rules of the road on 'em.

We appreciate the opt-out provisions and the denial of service bans. We also have work to do to continue on the civil rights protections and algorithms we have seen for years. Internet companies, whether directly or through algorithms, perpetrate some redlining and other discriminatory practices and then enforcement. The FTC will do a great job, so will state ags and we need to look at whether we have the right of action at the level it needs to make sure individuals can help. And of course preemption as well. Florida just passed some privacy legislation. It is not quite up to where it needs to be and so we're thrilled about the work being done here. Lastly, I filed an amendment today, which is more for discussion purposes. I had a local constituent, Alex Bugay, a University of Central Florida student whose identity was totally stolen and then social media was put up to criticize and make racist comments against the Georgia State legislator.

This theft of his identity destroyed his life. He lost his job, he almost got kicked out of school and it's become a huge news story in central Florida, which is why I the SHIELD Act, which I hope to get as part of the amendments in the next round as we go to the full markup, which is to help protect folks against their identities being stolen for liable or slanderous or other criminal action and that they'll either have the ability to put up a community note or at the ideally that they have the ability to take down this information. So I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the island on this really important measure to protect families across the nation and our dad online and I yield back.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Thank you. Appreciate it gentlemen. Yields back now I'll recognize Dr. Buschon from the great state of Indiana. I guess he's a Big 10 guy too.

Rep. Larry Buschon (R-IN):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I moved to strike the last word on the underlying bill. Today's states across the United States and nations across the globe have recognized the importance of establishing rules of the road for how the data of their constituents is used and regulated. I'm glad that Indiana is one of those states. Now it's time for Congress to act at a national level. I want to thank chair McMorris Rodgers for working to get a much needed federal framework for data protection in place and I'm pleased with many of the changes that occurred from the initial discussion draft to what we're considering today. I have the following thoughts on clinical health trial and medical research. Data research doesn't begin and end in the clinic. Data obtained from patients post FDA approval and post administration are important to feedback into the r and d process provisions related to the use of this data derived outside of the clinical trial setting to derive r and d insights and provisions related to the collection and use of this data to comply with FDA mandated reporting requirements should be considered as part of this text.

Additionally, the draft legislation limits the general scientific research exemption to efforts that are public and peer reviewed, which in my view is somewhat restrictive and doesn't account for much of the research that industry does to develop life-saving drugs and treatment. And I think we can work with that to get that improved. I'm also concerned a little bit about the way the legislation defines data brokers, which includes the processing of covered data as a trigger to be classified as a data broker. None of the individual state laws that have been enacted to date, deem an entity that processes data as a data broker if they do not go on to transfer or sell that data, overscoping this definition could have negative consequences for many who simply provide their own users and intended service. Another issue, I think that still needs addressing, pertains to the definition of on-device data.

This legislation should exempt data that remains on technological devices such as automobiles that is not accessed by their manufacturer or transferred to other entities using vehicles. As an example, many onboard computer systems and sensors control the basic operations and safety function of vehicles. So long as this technical data is not sold or transferred outside of the vehicle, it should be exempt. Again. I think we've made a lot of progress and I'm committed to a national data privacy law and I'm very pleased with the progress we've made in the American Privacy Rights Act discussion draft we're considering today. I look forward to continuing working to enact a national data privacy framework that establishes clear protections for how Hoosiers data can be used, gives citizens of Indiana control over their own data and promotes innovation throughout our country. Thank you. And I yield back.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Gentlemen yields back now. Recognize the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, Ms. Schakowsky, for five minutes and she's going to speak on the bill.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to go back to this issue of biometric data. We are talking here about information that is unique to each individual and so when we don't do anything to disallow the gathering of information like fingerprints or DNA, then all people are vulnerable. They can't do anything to change the basic data that could be collected and I'm so happy that Chairman Rodgers said that she would agree to work with us on dealing with this. Lemme just give you one example is profiling that can occur at a grocery store where for example, where pictures are taken of someone and this kind of activity has actually ended up where people are wrongfully even arrested for shoplifting or for something and that it is most likely to happen and has happened to people of color. So it seems to me very important that we consider this vulnerability and include it in the legislation and I look forward to that happening. And with that I…

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

General lady, yield please.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL):

Yes, yes.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

You're recognized.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

Thank you. And I share the concern around the collection of biometric and genetic information. I do want to point everyone to the legislation. We do have provisions that are, I believe strong, perhaps even stronger than what was in the bill that passed out of this committee last year, but I am committed to continuing to work to make sure that the provisions around protecting biometric and genetic information are as strong as they need to be and so I'll yield back.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Does the general lady yield back? Yes. Okay. She yields back. Now we'll recognize Mr. Walberg from the great state of Michigan for his five minutes. He's going to speak on the bill as well.

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to sincerely thank Chair Rodgers and the committee for their ongoing work to establish a comprehensive privacy law. This is no easy task as we all know. Unfortunately, I do have some concerns about the legislation as it currently is drafted. Protecting children and teens online is one of the top priorities for parents across the country. We're facing a youth mental health crisis and a suicide crisis because social media companies are not looking out for the wellbeing of our kids. Instead, more data equals more targeted ads, which equals more revenue no matter the cost or the harm to young people. It is crucial that we cut these practices off at the root and in a way that is straightforward, functional, and strong. This is why I and Representative Castor introduced the Children and Teens Online Privacy Protection Act or COPPA 2.0.

The legislation is a robust update to the only federal children's privacy framework on the books. It's a long negotiated bipartisan bicameral bill with nearly 100 organizations supporting it. They include advocates on all sides of the political spectrum as well as groups that represent our constituents, our teachers, our parents, our doctors, and so many others. COPPA 2.0, which is led in the Senate by Senators Markey, Cassidy, Cruz and Cantwell… distinguished group. There is the update we need along with casa, led by my friend chairman Bilirakis. I believe COPPA 2.0 has a clear path forward in the Senate due to its significant bipartisan and stakeholder support. The legislation would raise the age to 16, ban any targeted advertising to minors, update the outdated knowledge standard, establish strong data minimization requirements, and create an eraser button for parents and teens to have true control. Unfortunately at this point this is not COPPA 2.0 in the discussion draft.

It has the skin but not the meat and the bones. While I appreciate that they incorporated some updates to COPPA, more of COPPA 2.0 needs to be included or advanced separately to better increase privacy protections for young people. First, the draft legislation eliminates provisions of COPPA 2.0 that would've raised the age of protection of 16. We have all heard testimony and countless heartbreaking personal stories of why teenagers are the most vulnerable group when it comes to the harmful and manipulative data practices by big tech. I understand that APRA includes teenagers in the definition of a covered minor for Title I, but raising the age of protection specifically for COPPA is a necessary update that allows greater clarity and targeting for the unique protections and options that should be granted to minors and their parents. Additionally, APRA needs to update the actual knowledge standards so we can move past a standard that has been in place since the late nineties. I know the committee is aware and understands this need as it's been previously discussed in csa.

I never could say ADDPA and COPPA 2.0. Lastly, I'm also concerned that with the definition of targeted advertising as it stands, there are loopholes that platforms and websites could exploit to continue pushing targeted ads to minors. Keeping the prohibition on targeting or targeted advertising within the update of COPPA allows more flexibility to be specific to minors and close those loopholes without threatening the ability of businesses to provide targeted ads to adults. Again, I sincerely support the chair's efforts to establish a much needed comprehensive privacy law. This is a massive undertaking that she has been working on since she stepped into her role on energy and commerce. For her, this issue is personal and I so appreciate the work that she and staff have done to better protect all Americans online. We have already seen some promising updates made since the legislative hearing and are encouraged by its progress, but we need to be vigilant in making sure that we are not unintentionally moving away from stronger privacy protections for children and teenagers in our effort to increase online privacy. I think all members of the committee agree minors should be treated differently and have a privacy framework that accounts for their unique harms and developmental needs. I still believe the best and most straightforward way of accomplishing this is COPPA 2.0. I hope I can continue working with the committee on a path forward to see my legislation addressed more adequately so we can work toward a goal we all share protecting young people online. Thank you. I yield back.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Gentlemen yields back now. Recognize Ms. Kelly for your five minutes with regard to speaking on the bill, the underlying bill, you're recognized.

Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL):

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

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

You're recognized.

Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL):

For starters, I want to thank my colleagues and all the staff for the hard work that has been done to craft a federal privacy bill that establishes national data privacy rights for Americans. The American Privacy Rights Act makes important gains as it relates to protecting America's data privacy acts importantly, APRA has critical data minimization provisions that limit the type of data that companies can collect, keep and use to what companies need to provide for products and services. APRA also gives Americans greater control over their data by requiring companies to let people access, correct , delete and export their data. Additionally, I appreciate a's inclusion of language to provide stronger protections to address the youth mental health crisis by prohibiting certain data practices that exacerbate harmful algorithms targeting America's children and teenagers. I also applaud APRA's inclusion of civil rights protections that prohibit companies from using American's personal information to discriminate against them.

This is especially important to me because as I said during the April 17th IDC subcommittee, hearing privacy rights are civil rights because in the era of big data, personal information can be weaponized for digital redlining. Studies have found that mortgage algorithms were 80% more likely to reject black applicants than white applicants with similar characteristics. Auto insurance algorithms increasingly assess applicants based on socioeconomic factors and less on their driving behavior. And retailers use facial recognition technology that erroneously accused customers of shoplifting and falsely flagged women and people of color at higher rates than other shoppers. However, I do have concerns with APRA and I think further changes should be considered. That said, it has been difficult for me and my staff to review a 174 page bill in a little over 24 hours. So like many others, we are still trying to understand everything that is in this bill.

For starters, it is my understanding that APRA, unlike ADPPA from the hundred 17th Congress does not afford consumers the right to seek relief in the courts for companies collecting, processing, retaining and storing sensitive data, data, not necessarily to provide a product or service that may be data about one's race, religion, sex, health, or geolocation. Further, I joined some of my colleagues and the concerns raised by 15 state attorney generals in a May 8th letter also signed by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raul around APRA's intended or unintended impact on states’ attorneys general enforcement capabilities. Specifically, it appears that APRA could impede or prohibit a State Attorney general's ability to use civil investigative demands under their consumer protection authority to demand documents or information when there could have been a violation of the law. This concern stems from section one 20 subdivision C, which provides that a violation of this act or regulation promulgated under this act may not be pleaded as in an element of any violation of any state common law or any state statutory law.

I believe this could be a shift in the status quo and that is pointed out by the May 8th letter. Ordinarily a violation of a federal law standard could also be a violation of state consumer protection law. Consequently, my concern is that this language could limit states attorney general's investigatory powers when there are violations of such laws. Lastly, I would also like to voice my continued disappointment and a lack of inclusion of privacy icons next to short form notices. Something I advocated for with the ADPPA, I believe more can be done to ensure consumers understand what they're agreeing to with these privacy policies, which is why I've supported adding privacy icons to privacy so consumers can be aided by visual representation of how their data is treated. In closing, it is my view that explainable privacy icons are key to data transparency and ensuring consumers understand their options when agreeing to company privacy policies. These are the reasons why I'm encouraged by the work that has been done. I urge my colleagues to agree to continue to work on this bill before it heads to a full committee markup lacking the necessary changes raised by me and others. I'm not yet sure that I can support this privacy legislation should it be considered at a full committee markup. Thank you. And I yield back.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

General lady yields back now. Does anybody on the Republican side wish to speak on the bill? Okay, I'll recognize Representative Castor for her five minutes and she's going to speak on the bill. Appreciate it very much. You recognize.

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. It is urgent that we adopt a modern data privacy law to protect the personal information of all Americans and I truly appreciate the work of Chair Rodgers and Ranking Member Pallone and my good friend chair Bilirakis and Ranking Member Schakowsky. And it's been music to my ears that you're saying this morning that this discussion draft will be strengthened from this point forward because big tech platforms track everything we do everywhere we go, everything we buy online, they use that information to manipulate us, to exploit us, and this manipulation is particularly harmful to children and adolescents. The American Academy of Pediatrics says on data collection from children and teens on a vast scale allows companies to monitor, track and target young people with advertisements and content that exploit their developmental vulnerabilities for commercial gain. Research indicates that the use of data to target children and adolescents with highly personalized behavioral advertising and user experiences is not developmentally appropriate because they have not yet developed mature critical thinking skills or impulse inhibition.

Kids are very lucrative to these big tech platforms. They're ripe targets for a wide range of actors from child sexual abuse, cyber bullies, drug dealers, and scam artists and parents and kids need help. They need this Congress to finally pass a modern privacy law and to update the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, which hasn't been changed for 25 years. Big tech platforms use every method possible to keep kids online and addicted so that they can pocket huge profits and the mental health repercussions for our kids are staggering. The American Psychological Association has issued a mental health advisory similar to what the US Surgeon General has done. Almost half of the teens in the US have experienced bullying or harassment online. Between 2010 and 2019, teen depression rates doubled with teenage girls seeing the sharpest increase in 2021. Almost a third of girls said that they are seriously considering attempting suicide and this committee has heard directly from whistleblowers, including the Facebook whistleblower, Francis Haugen and others, that the platforms know this.

They know that their platforms are causing harm, but the kids are just too lucrative for them to change how they do business. So it's long past time for Congress to step in. I know many of you have probably tuned into Jonathan Haight and his new book, The Anxious Generation, How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness. I think one of the reasons what he is saying is so resonant with parents like me and many across the country, and I hear it in Chair Roxgers what she says, because we've watched this, we've watched the changes over time. We saw the rise of social media and these platforms and how they skirt the law.

That's why I am so very disappointed. Very disappointed with how ineffective and weak the a r discussion draft is when it comes to kids. I echo the concerns of my good friend Mr. Walberg, who has worked for many years on this. For many years we've had the, I've introduced the Kids' Privacy, the Kids' Privacy Act. We have a bipartisan bill COPPA 2.0 that has a stakeholders’ – parents, advocates – endorsement across the spectrum. One of the pathways forward is to bring up COPPA 2.0 and pass it. The other way forward is to incorporate it into the discussion. Draft completely fails to include important protections. It removes the COPPA 2.0's knowledge standard entirely and would now only apply to websites and apps that are directed to children. Excluding those platforms where platforms that know a user is minor. APRA includes a weak definition of targeted advertising that would allow many websites and apps to continue serving targeted ads to children and teens. These issues are critical to modernizing current law to reflect the tech driven world that we live in. So Chair Rodgers, I hear your offer and Mr. Bilirakis, I hear your offer to continue to work on this. I trust you. We are going to move forward, but as this bill stands now, it really fails kids and teens and families. We have our work cut out for us. I yield back.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

General lady yields back. So who seeks recognition on the bill, the underlying bill? Anyone on the Republican side? Alright, we'll go with the Democrat side and Representative Dingell, you're recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Thank you. Privacy is a fundamental right and I'm encouraged by the desire of my colleagues to make real bipartisan progress on comprehensive privacy legislation. Any comprehensive privacy bill that comes out of this committee has to do the following things. Keep kids safe online is so eloquently expressed by my colleague. Empower individuals to be the ultimate arbitrator of their data and how it is used. Protect sensitive and personal information from being misused. Clarify the role and the expectations in the collection, processing and transfer of data, and provide accountability measures for lapses in offering these protections which have become all too commonplace, no consequences. Consumers care about how their data is used and I'm supportive of this ongoing process and the tangible progress we've made in the American Privacy Rights Act. I thank my colleagues for the commitment to strengthening these protections, but there is still work to be done.

We've made significant bipartisan progress on both sides of the aisle to find solutions for sensitive data categories and data minimization. These efforts are needed to protect consumer privacy. We must continue to focus on ensuring that the data minimization provisions in this bill allow only the collection, use , retention and transfer of necessary data, reducing misuse risks, and enhancing consumer trust. Protections for sensitive data such as health and financial information are particularly important and we need to make sure consumers understand when they are looking at what could be released. I think it became real to too many consumers who just get gobbly-gooped when they read in the New York Times that General Motors was selling their information to an insurance company and their insurance rates were going up. That is not right. We must ensure that the permissible purposes for using consumers data are consistent with people's expectations and benefit rather than harm consumers.

For example, covered entities such as automakers need some data to continue to keep people safe. Automakers need to use and retain some data that's linked to car owners, such as VIN numbers to push the quality improvements to the correct vehicles and to perform quality research and improve vehicle quality, but not sell data or give data to people they don't know it's going to. Additionally, we must ensure fairness and audit and review requirements for data holders while also addressing the threat of foreign adversaries accessing our consumer data building on bipartisan efforts like Protecting America's Data from Foreign Adversaries Act, which he passed out of this committee and President Biden signed into law. We must enforce strict protections against transferring sensitive data to foreign adversaries. I have filed an amendment that further limits foreign adversaries access to American sensitive information. I won't be offering it or seeking a vote on the amendment today.

I look forward to working with members on both sides of the aisle to ensure this important priority is addressed prior to full committee markup. And I also continue to be concerned about how we use data that could contribute to domestic violence. As I said at the outset, all of us can agree we need comprehensive privacy reform. The American Privacy Rights Act is a major step in the right direction and will protect consumers across the country. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their collaboration on this legislation and I will work with everyone to help get it across the finish line. Thank you Mr. Chairman. And I yield back.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

General lady yields back. Appreciate that. And does anyone seek recognition on the Republican side?

Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-TN):

Mr. Chairman?

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Yes, you're recognized.

Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-TN):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I moved to strike the last word.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

You're recognized.

Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-TN):

You know, I'm happy to see that we're making progress with this legislation and I'm proud of the work this committee and our chairwoman Hass done in negotiating the bipartisan draft. I know it's not perfect as nothing ever is, but I know there needs to be bipartisan compromise to get this across the finish line, but this is not a finished product yet and we're going to keep working and because this legislation is too important not to get right with that Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to advance this important bill to the full committee. And with that, sir, I yell back.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

I appreciate that. Thank you. General Lady yields back. Does anybody seek recognition on the Democrat side? All right, Mrs. Trahan, you're recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.

Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA):

Well, thank you Chair Bilirakis, and I sincerely appreciate the hard work that you, Chair Rogers, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and Ranking Member Pallone have put in to bring this legislation forward. This legislation is already stronger than it was at introduction, and I'm glad to see the changes I suggested have been included in the latest draft to ensure that consumers can delete their data held by data brokers and that public interest and peer reviewed research is restored as a permitted purpose under the privacy law. I'd like to submit for the record this letter from the Center for American Progress and numerous researchers pushing for the restoration of that important permitted purpose. And while a lot of progress has been made, I filed

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Objection, so ordered.

Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA):

I filed a few amendments highlighting some particular areas where the bill still has room to improve and I hope that we can work to address these issues. At full committee markup, I joined Representative Kelly in her concern about the bill's potential impact to state attorney general investigative authority. We have to ensure that our state AGs can investigate potential APRA violations through civil investigative demands. Before bringing a suit, I filed an amendment to clarify that the preservation of state ag investigatory authority in section one 18 of APRA applies to the entire privacy law, ensuring that no other provision of the title can be construed to limit that authority. I've also filed an amendment to clarify the data. Brokers do not get a free pass to sell our personal information and ignore the privacy law just because they are in part consumer reporting agencies. When a consumer reporting agency starts brokering our personal data for targeted advertising, they should be considered a data broker under the law. My amendment makes that crystal clear. Finally, I've also filed an amendment to further support the efforts of public interest researchers who, despite numerous structural barriers, work hard every day to bring transparency and accountability to online platforms. I'd like to submit for the record another letter from numerous public interest researchers and organizations urging the committee to take stronger action to bring transparency to big tech.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Without objections to order.

Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA):

Thank you. And my final amendment, which establishes a safe harbor for public interest. Privacy protective platform research allows researchers to collect publicly available data from online platforms without fear of violating the platform's terms of service time and time again, social media platforms use their terms of service to threaten, intimidate, and harass independent researchers to stifle them from sharing honest truths about their platform's, impacts on youth mental health, online safety and harassment. This amendment would put a stop to it and I hope we can include it in the bill going forward. And last, but not by any means least, I'm glad that the committee is including COPPA 2.0 in APRA and seeking to improve protections for children's privacy as well. But it's important that key provisions of COPPA 2.0 are not lost in the transition to the comprehensive privacy law. I'm a mom too. One of COPPA 2.0’s most impactful changes is the expansion of its privacy protections to teenagers as well as children. And the bill also has a stronger definition of targeted advertising that better protects minor's privacy. There's a lot of work to be done to fully realize the benefits of COPPA 2.0 and properly integrated into opera, and I hope the chair will commit to working with Congresswoman Castor and me and so many others on this important effort. Thank you. I yield back

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

Will the gentle lady yield?

Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA):

Yes. Yes.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

Thank you. Thank you. I just want everyone to know I'm fully committed to working with you with Representative Castor, with the Ranking Member Pallone with Representative Walberg on strengthening the provisions around COPPA 2.0. I think it's very important that we get COPPA as much as we can get it incorporated and get it to work well with the underlying American Privacy Rights Act. So I am committed and I hope everyone else is committed too. Let's get it done. Yield back,

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

General lady yields back. Now, does anybody on the Republican side seek recognition to speak on the bill? Seeing none, I understand we have. Yes. Representative Clarke, you're recognized to speak on the bill.

Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the chairwoman of the committee as well as Ranking Member Schakowsky and Ranking Member Pallone. And while I'm relieved that we are finally moving forward with comprehensive data privacy legislation, this Congress, I would remind my colleagues that process really matters. The work we are doing is too important, way too important, and we must move forward in an open bipartisan manner that gives members on both sides of the aisle sufficient time to review changes to major legislation and offer thoughtful feedback and amendments. That being said, I was pleased to see that important provisions on civil rights and algorithms were included. However, just as I voiced at the legislative hearing on the previous discussion draft, there are issues with definition of key terminology in this bill. The current definition used for targeted advertising in particular really needs to be tightened up and further.

I appreciate the addition of “consequential decision,” but I worry that terms as currently defined in the bill may not be sufficient. To that end, I'm working on legislative language to improve and strengthen the bill and once again, urge my colleagues to move forward with as much transparency as possible as this bill works its way through the committee. I want to also add my voice to that of Congresswoman Kathy Castor and of course Lori Trahan and many others who have voiced their concern about putting a strong backing behind the COPPA legislation as we can to the benefit of our children. The monetization of their lives starts pretty early on and we can only imagine as they proceed in life what the consequences of that level of engagement and intrusion into their lives will mean for them as adults. And we know that vulnerable communities are counting on us to get this right. So I stand at the ready to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and make sure we are putting forth a federal data privacy standard worthy of the American people. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Gentleman yields back. Any further comments? Anyone wish to speak on the bill? All right, let's get started. Let's get into the amendatory process. Anyone seek to offer an amendment? Yes, Representative Olbernolte, you're recognized to offer an amendment.

Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA):

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to ask designated Olbernolte 64.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

The clerk will report the amendment.

Clerk:

Amendment to discussion draft offered by Mr. Obernolte of California. Page 35, strike line 12 and all that follows through line

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Nine without objection the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and you're recognized for five minutes in support of your amendment.

Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA):

Well thank you Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank you and our full committee chairwoman for the open and inclusive process that you've used in developing this bill. This is a topic that's very important to me and that I've had a lot of engagement in. When we drafted the California Consumer Privacy Act in California several years ago, I was one of the leads involved with that and I want to make sure that we get this process right, that we incorporate the lessons that we learned in California when approaching this topic and then we also avoid some of the mistakes that were made there and that's why I'm so appreciative of the fact that you've been so open and inclusive in this process. One of the things that I think is critically important when we approach this issue is that we distinguish between small businesses and larger businesses.

It's very clear. I mean this bill is already 174 pages and likely to get even longer. That is a lot of regulatory complexity for two people in a garage to deal with who are trying to start the next Google. So it's critical that we differentiate what our requirements are based on the size of the company and that's why I think it's very important that we get the definition of small business.

So this amendment makes an important change to that. First, inflation indexes the gross receipts. That's one of the tests for the small business under this bill. We're trying to craft something that's durable here that Americans can rely on to protect their privacy for generations to come. I think that that definition because of inflation has got to be inflation indexed and so it makes that change. Another change that I think is very important is in the following section as regards the number of individuals covered data that an entity can store before no longer being considered a small business.

Right now, that level is set at 200,000. Let me tell you why that might be a problem. It's taken from my own experience as a career in video game development. There are lots of small video game developers that are just a couple of people working out of their homes that might create a very simple mobile game that you can play on your phone and they might charge 99 cents for it. If 200,000 people bought that game at 99 cents, that is only an annual revenue of $200,000, not even close to $40 million. And yet this game might include a leaderboard that displays a user's score next to their name and under this bill that's arguably covered data. So those two people would no longer meet the definition of small business and I don't think that that was the intent of this committee. So I would suggest that the two-pronged test be ‘or’ instead of ‘and,’ in other words, either you have to both have a gross revenue over 40 million and store more than 200,000 people's covered data. So that's the substance of the amendment. I think it's worthy of consideration. I understand that the intention here is not to have votes as we move towards a full committee markup and in the spirit of that and a desire to see us continue having this discussion, I'll withdraw that for today. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Gentlemen wishes to withdraw his amendment. Yes sir. Alright, are there further amendments that you recognize? Sir?

Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA):

I have an amendment at the desk designated Obernolte 59

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Clerk will report.

Clerk:

Amendment to discussion draft offered by Mr. Obernolte of California. Page five, line 22.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed within Representative Obernolte is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA):

Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. This is another amendment in the definition of small business that was suggested by the committee staff as a way of perhaps solving the problem that we just talked about where we're dealing with a business that's storing information that's not necessarily sensitive information and that would include things like someone's score in a video game. This would add the word sensitive to that definition to make it clear that what we really care about is the storage of sensitive information and if you're storing information that's not sensitive, that a little bit more leeway can be exercised in defining you a small business. So I think this is a very worthwhile amendment to consider and I hope that it'll be incorporated in the draft moving forward. But for today I will withdraw it. And lemme just say I had a number of other amendments here that I think are important, but in the spirit of expediency and working towards getting a full committee markup, that's the last amendment I'll be offering today.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

I appreciate that very much. The gentleman withdraws the amendment. Are there any further amendments to the bill? And let's proceed on final passage. Is there any further discussion on the particular bill? No. Okay. If there are no further discussion on either side, the vote occurs on forwarding the discussion draft to the full committee. All those in favor shall signify by saying aye. Aye. All those oppose, the ayes have it and the discussion draft is agreed to. The chair calls up HR 78 91 and asks the clerk to report .

Clerk:

HR 78 91 A bill to protect the safety of children on the internet.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Does anyone seek recognition to speak on the bill at this particular time? I'm going to recognize myself for five minutes to speak on the bill. Okay. So I urge my colleagues to support Kids Online Safety Act legislation that will shift the paradigm of responsibility when it comes to online safety from families to big tech companies who have repeatedly failed to adequately protect kids who use their platforms. Unfortunately, we've seen a disturbing spike in rates of depression, self-harm and suicide attempts and death among teens. With teen depression in particular rising by more than 60% since 2011. According to the CDC, this coincides with the same period that social media and smartphones use. The use has exploded folks. It's unacceptable and these trends are cause for alarm and action.

KOSA provides significant reforms to the way these online products are offered to children by requiring them to ensure their design features mitigate against these harms we've seen among youth. At our legislative hearing, we heard testimony from Ava Smithing and the chair actually brought this up and she was representing the Young People's Alliance and she shared her story about her battle with eating disorders that were perpetuated by Instagram's algorithms, filter bubbles and use of her data to serve ads that made the problem even worse. I know many of us have also met with survivor families who have tragically had children succumb to worse fates. I've heard stories from Jennifer Mitchell in my district in Pasco County, Florida whose son Ian died after attempting a dangerous online challenge on Snapchat. And Cheryl McCormick Brown in my home county of Pinellas whose daughter McKenna died by suicide after being cyber bullied and harassed on social media and the Nasca family from Long Island who lost their son Chase because of tiktoks algorithms pushing him to suicide.

I commend these moms for being willing to turn their sorrow into action to improve online safety. And we've heard you and we are responding to this. Sadly, these stories are too common, ladies and gentlemen, and we must do more to stop addiction, depression and wrongful deaths. The Kids Online Act is a significant step forward in holding these online platforms accountable. Our legislation would provide kids and teens the opportunity to turn off data-driven recommendations systems and provide parents with tools to manage a minor's use of a platform, including options to control safety settings by default, track their time limit purchases and address harmful usage. Most consumers, especially children, are unaware that much of the content they see on platforms is determined by sophisticated algorithms that draw on data about each consumer's online activity. Title II of the bill, which incorporates Senator Thune's Filter Bubble Bill, and requires platforms to notify users when a secret algorithm is used to determine how it serves content to users.

This provision will make it easier for children and parents to understand how they are manipulated by these recommendation systems used by internet platforms like TikTok, Facebook or Google among others. We have taken a significant amount of feedback on this particular piece of legislation and I know advocates, stakeholders and others, including my callings here on the das have expressed ideas about how to improve this particular bill. So I plan to work on those suggestions and I look forward to continuing to collaborate and negotiate with my colleague Kathy Castor from the state of Florida and thank her for her leadership on this particular bill. I know we are both committed to getting this legislation across the finish line. I also thank my colleagues, Representatives Buschon, Schrier, and Houchin for their input and I appreciate them co-leading this effort with us. So let's do the right thing. Ladies and gentlemen, let's move forward with HR 78 91 in a bipartisan fashion, the Kids Online Safety Act. We must protect our children online. That's the bottom line. And hold big tech accountable. So I'll yield back the balance of my time and I will recognize a person on the Democrat side. And it's my friend, the Lady General lady from Florida, Ms. Castor for her five minutes to speak on the bill.

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL):

Well thank you Chairman Bilirakis. The Kids Online Safety Act is going to make the internet safer for kids and teens and Rep Bilirakis. I want to thank you for your leadership and your partnership on this endeavor. And I also want to recognize Senator Blumenthal, Senator Blackburn folks, all of the professional staff, but mainly the parents and advocates who have gotten us to this point today. And Raus, you're right, many of them have lost children or are grappling with the fallout right now. And we are going to act. We try to prevent these online harms to other kids in the future because we know what's going on the big tech platforms. They design their products so that they can addict kids, steal their time, attention, keep them online as long as possible, and oftentimes funnel them towards harmful and exploitative content. And the big tech platforms have known this, but they have failed to mitigate the dangers and harms being perpetrated online. And as is a parent today that it's led to a mental health crisis among kids and teens stolen attention and time away from what childhood should mean, being able to get outside, be healthy and well. So the Kids' Online Safety Act now will institute some guardrails, kind of rebalance the scales for parents and kids and promote transparency. So here's a few of the things that it does.

The bill outlines a set of harms to minors under the age of 17 and requires the tech platforms to take reasonable measures to prevent and mitigate online harms, including suicide, depression, eating disorders, substance abuse, sexual exploitation, and certain unlawful products for minors like drugs and tobacco products and gambling and alcohol. It empowers parents and informs policymakers about individual social media platforms, efforts to reduce risk to kids by requiring independent audits and supporting access to important data for experts and academic researchers. Something that I really appreciate Representative Trahan's leadership on as well, and we can do more here. It directs the covered platforms to implement controls to protect against stalking and exploitation of children, provides kids and teens the ability to turn off data-driven recommendation algorithms requires the platforms to provide parents with the tools to help manage a minor's use of a platform, including options to control safety settings, track their time limit purchases and address harmful usage.

And it makes this the default mode. It implements a reporting mechanism by directing cover platforms to establish a dedicated reporting channel to alert the channel of harms to minors and requires them to substantively respond in a timely manner. It ensures that the covered platforms offer an easy to use control and prohibits the use of dark patterns that mislead or confuse consumers. It's not perfect. And rep, bill, chair, bill, I appreciate your ongoing outreach on how we can strengthen this Chair Rodgers, I hear you and thank you as well for bringing this bill today and your commitment to working, strengthen this and the copper provisions. I'm grateful to both of you and the entire committee. I think all of the committee members here have a greater understanding of what has been happening. We've come a long way from a few years ago when it was really over in the Senate that they didn't quite understand what was happening with these big tech platforms and what they were doing to addict kids. But everyone is wide awake now to the harms and the necessity for making the internet a safer place for our kids. So thank you again for bringing the bill today. We should all vote for it enthusiastically and then work in the coming days to make it even stronger. Thank you. And I yield back my time.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Thank you, general lady yields back. I look forward to working with you, continue to work with you. As a matter of fact, I spoke to one of the Center's sponsors last night. We got to get this across the finish line. We'll find consensus. So we appreciate it very much. And now I recognize the chair of the full committee, Mrs. Rogers for five minutes to speak on the bill.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'd like to take a moment to recognize several folks who are in the audience today. Sam Chapman, Deb Schmeil, and Todd and Mia Minor. Do you want to waive? Thank you

All who have experienced firsthand the damaging impact big tech is having on our children and the experiences that you've been forced to go through are every parent's greatest fear. I've mentioned before, I'm a mom of three young kids and my biggest fear is what's happening to our kids online. I don't trust what's happening at all and I want to thank you for being here. I want to thank you for your advocacy for many, many years and I'm confident that this subcommittee is going to take important action today and we're going to continue to work to strengthen protections for all of our children online and all Americans online. This is our moment. I yield back.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Thank the general lady, general Lady yields back now. Recognize Ms. Blunt Rochester (D-DE) for her five minutes to speak on the bill.

Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

You're recognized.

Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE):

Today as we consider legislation to respond to the clear need for federal standards for data privacy and for the protection of kids online. I am focused on, as our chairwoman said, I'm a mom. I also have a mother who is a senior who I'm concerned can fall prey to some of the things that are happening on these big tech platforms. And so for us to be able to make sure that we in a bipartisan way focus on this is important as we protect our health and the mental health of our young people as we seek to keep us all safe and also protect our personal data in this world today, we know we work, we learn, we do business, we connect with others online. So we must ensure that Americans are protected from harmful and exploitative practices. And that's why last Congress, I introduced a bipartisan bill called The Detour Act. This bill would prohibit online platforms from using dark patterns, which are design features that could deceive Americans into handing over their data or giving their consent. And I'm going to just give a couple of examples because this is a term that many people have never even heard before.

A dark pattern is when you sign up for a trial period of something, maybe a credit card, and then after that you're automatically charged and then you can't figure out how to get out of it. You can't figure out how to cancel it. A dark pattern is when you are on a page and there's a teeny tiny X, but it's so tiny that you can't even X out of it or even find it. A dark pattern is a bait and switch. The Detour Act would also forbid platforms from using people, especially children as test subjects in behavioral or psychological research without their express consent. And finally, it would specifically protect kids by prohibiting interfaces designed to encourage compulsive usage of these online platforms. I'm encouraged that the heart of these provisions from My Detour Act are included in the Kids' Online Safety Act and the American Privacy Rights Act, which we are considering today.

We must work together to put in place some basic protections for our kids and for all Americans. I think we'd be hard pressed to find a member in this room or even in the legislative body who would object to the premise that online platforms and services cannot be allowed to trick and manipulate people into making choices that serve the bottom line and expense of those companies, but at the expense of our constituents. And it is clear that we still have some work to do, but I'm encouraged by the work of all of us coming together and I'm encouraged by my colleagues who have been working tirelessly on this. Ultimately, the Detour Act should be a part of both of these bills and I'm glad that they are and I'm looking forward to working in partnership to strengthen these bills because it is truly about the safety and security of all Americans. Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Thank you. General lady yields back now. Recognize Dr. Buschon to speak on the bill.

Rep. Larry Buschon (R-IN):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the recognition. I'm a proud co-sponsor of the Kids Online Safety Act and COPPA 2.0 and I'm glad that this committee is moving forward with these bills to protect young Americans from the harms they face online today. Our children are served content online that is wildly inappropriate, ranging from promoting suicide and eating disorders to alcohol and tobacco. Many parents struggle to monitor their children's activities even if they're trying. This is due in part to the fact that many platforms as algorithms that direct content and try to keep users' attention online are not available to the public. We need transparency. As a father of four who's now adult children grew up in the midst of social media, I'm blessed that my family avoided the harms that have hurt and actually taken the lives of too many young Americans online. I'm grateful to the many parents who had the courage to tell the stories of how their families were not as lucky as mine. And to learn about what Congress can do to prevent these tragedies that began online from occurring again, we can act and we must. So I'm proud to support the Kids Online Safety Act today and I encourage my colleagues to do so as well. Thank you. And I yield back the balance of my time.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Gentlemen yields back. Anybody on the Democrat side wish to speak on the bill? Ms. Trahan, you're recognized five minutes to speak on the bill.

Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA):

Thank you. Thank you Chair Bilirakis. I'm glad that the committee is finally considering the Kids' Online Safety Act and I appreciate your and representative Castro's continued leadership on the issue. As this bill has progressed in the Senate, it's undergone countless revisions to refine and tailor many of the bill's key provisions, especially the duty of care to minimize potential abuses and focus the bill on its critically important goal of protecting children online. Irresponsible tech platforms have ignored, discounted, or outright harmed the health of our children across the country by prioritizing screen time and ad revenue over our children's health and wellbeing. And they fought relentlessly to avoid any accountability or transparency into their business practices. It's why as policymakers we've had to rely on whistleblowers like Francis Haugen and independent researchers who have to fight against the platform tooth and nail to collect the data they need to do their job investigating these problems.

I was extremely disappointed to see that the Senate struck and replaced KOSA's original section on independent research facilitation with a limited series of studies that hardly provide a shred of accountability and insight. The sponsors initially intended with this bill, the original section would've allowed qualified independent researchers to demand data from online platforms to study how their recommendation algorithms, their daily login rewards and other design features are affecting our children. And it would've done so while respecting the privacy standards we're also advocating for and protecting intellectual property. I agree with the Ranking Member Pallone and so many others that we should improve this section on independent research. And I think the best place to start is with the original bipartisan provision that actually enabled independent accountability into these platforms. I hope to work with the bill sponsors and the committee on this in advance of the full committee markup and I yield back

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

General lady yields back. And now I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Alti for his five minutes. Again, he'll speak on the underline bill.

Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA):

Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I am a strong supporter of what this bill is trying to do. However, I'd like to raise a serious concern that I have. Section 1 0 2 of the bill establishes a duty of care and says that online companies shall exercise reasonable care and take steps to mitigate a list of harms to children. And I very much agree with the harms that we're trying to mitigate. The problem is we don't define in the bill what we mean when we say reasonable and we don't define what the steps that should be taken are. And I think that that's lazy legislating. I think that we are abdicating our responsibility as legislators if we fail to define those terms because we're just punting to the courts and people are going to wind up in court for years and years arguing about what our intent was and what we meant by reasonable and whether or not a step that's taken is reasonable, even if it failed to completely mitigate the harm in the list. So I really hope that we can define what we mean there and tighten up that language. As this bill moves forward. I yield back. Mr. Chairman

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Gentlemen yields back, your point is well taken. So anyone else on the Democrat side? No Republican side wish to speak? All right, well let's move into the mandatory process. Anyone wish to offer an amendment? For what purposes? A gentleman from New Jersey seek recognition

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ):

Mr. Speaker. I have an amendment at the desk labeled Pallone oh two six.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

The clerk will report the amendment.

Clerk:

Amendment to HR 78 91 offered by Mr. Pallone of New Jersey. Strike section 106.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

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

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. And I do intend to withdraw the amendment, but I'd like to talk about it before we move to a full committee. This amendment would strike the requirement that the Federal Trade Commission pay the National Academy of Sciences to perform five studies. The FTC has a large mission but a limited budget. Today we're discussing bills that would add to that mission but not to the FTCs funding. And my amendment will prevent the situation from getting even worse. Earlier this year, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report entitled Social Media and Adolescent Health, which was funded by several private foundations including the Democracy Fund and the Ford Foundation. The report study the same issues required by the provision in this bill According to staff at the National Academy, no new research has been published in the interim that would change the result of that study and therefore there's no need in my opinion for a new National Academy of Sciences reported this time.

Furthermore, in addition to there being no new research since the last report, paying for those studies would likely force the FDC to cut important consumer protection work and leave the agency with less funding to implement new requirements including those contained in the bills before the committee today. It's not only redundant, it's harmful. I would also like to say that I hope private foundations continue to support important research efforts for future studies as the evidence evolves. Now let me also say that I strongly agree that social media companies should be held accountable for harming our nation's youth. But I have concerns about the ability to achieve that goal through the duty of care requirement established in KOSA. As this committee is aware, we place a legal duty of care on medical professionals when we seek care from a doctor or other medical provider. We justifiably expect the provider to identify our needs as individuals and act in our best interests.

Expecting healthcare professionals to care for their patients and to provide a level of care that a reasonable healthcare provider would've exercised under the same circumstances is appropriate. However, when we apply this concept to social media companies, serious questions or arise first, no one thinks that social media companies are acting in the best interest of their users and we should not trust them to do so in the future. I believe that companies operating these platforms know that the use of their platforms is causing harm, particularly to many of our nation's young people. And yet they continually make business decisions putting profits over people. So I'm concerned that adopting a duty of care standard for big tech runs the risk of creating additional harm. Adopting the duty of care could cause social media companies to over filter content out of an abundance of caution about legal risks.

And as a result, some young people could lose access to helpful and even lifesaving content. Now I do not believe holding social media companies to the duty of care included in this bill is the right solution to preventing harm to young people who use social media instead, I believe this issue can only be solved through reforming Section two 30, which through the courts has become an absolute shield for big tech against any transparency or accountability. And finally, I have serious concerns about the ability of social media companies to prevent and mitigate mental health disorders. Our scientific understanding of mental health disorders continues to evolve, including why certain people develop mental health disorders while others exposed to the same environment do not.

Therefore it's unclear that evidence exists for social media companies implementing such requirements. But in any case, despite these concerns, I'm not going to stand in the way of advancing this bill out of subcommittee today. We'll take up some of these things when we get to full committee and obviously I would like ultimately to have this amendment pass, but we're not going to do that today and I'll just withdraw it at

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

This time with the gentleman yield.

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ):

Oh sure.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

I think the Ranking Member for yielding, I hear his point on resource allocation at the FTC and I've long advocated that we keep the FTC focused on their consumer protection mission. We need the commission focused on implementing provisions outlined in a data privacy law and it's time for us to focus them on the mission. We're directing them today. I yield back.

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ):

I thank the chairwoman. With that Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Thank you very much. The gentleman wishes to withdraw his amendment. Consider withdrawn. I don't believe there are any further amendments. So the question now occurs on forwarding HR 78 91 to the full committee. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed the ayes have it and the bill is agreed to. Moving along the chair calls up HR 84 49 and asks the clerk to report

Clerk:

A bill to require the Secretary of Transportation to issue a rule requiring access to AM radio broadcast stations and motor vehicles. And for other purposes.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be open for amendment. At any point does anyone seek recognition on the particular bill? I do. I now recognize myself for five minutes to speak in support of the underlying bill, the AM radio for every vehicle act, which I'm proud to lead alongside wreaking member Pallone and in times of emergency folks, we must have every available avenue to receive public safety alerts as quickly as possible with as far reach as possible. Our constituents should have quick access to critical information so they make timely and potential lifesaving decisions to evacuate, stay in place, seek shelter, or contact first responders. The emergency alert system plays a crucial role in this infrastructure as it can be used across our nation to disseminate this important emergency information and AM radio continues to be a medium in which Americans can receive this information, particularly in rural communities.

I represent rural communities as well as many people on the diets on both sides. The integrated public alert and warning system I pause further allows broadcasters to disseminate critical alert information to communities across the nation. Recently, Houston, Texas was hit with significant severe weather and hundreds of thousands of Americans have remained without power. Sadly, eight individuals have passed because of these storms before the event. In the moment, that moment in the aftermath radio broadcast can become a lifeline, as you know and without power, many turn to their vehicles for updates. Further at our slave hearing, we heard testimony from Melody span Cooper who told us about the role that a AM radio plays in her community, both growing up and in the current age through Chicago neighborhoods as part of the Midway Broadcasting Corporation. Many of my colleagues enjoy listening to a and myself included, enjoy listening.

Listening to AM radio for its diverse views. And Christian conservative viewpoints might add ballgames as well. Yet the high tech auto industry has attempted to turn off these AM radio options for consumers and gas and electric fueled vehicles citing its difficulty to implement particularly in electric vehicles. Our side of the aisle is particularly concerned that the Biden administration's EV mandates have exacerbated this problem. Further, Congress has made it clear there is bipartisan agreement that taking away AM radio options for Americans is inappropriate and premature, which is why we've come together to move AM radio for every vehicle act of 2024. We're moving it forward. Our bill with Representative Palone will direct the Department of Transportation in consultation with FEMA and the FCC to issue a rule that requires automakers to maintain AM broadcast radio devices as standard equipment in their vehicles in a way that is easily accessible for consumers and without a separate or additional payments or surcharge fee.

It would also require clear disclosure for those vehicles that don't currently have a as an option in their cars. And lastly, it would require GAO to study to examine the importance of a radio as a communications technology and any improvements we can make to the IPAs and emergency alert systems we have in place. I'm proud to be a partner with Representative Pallone, our Ranking Member of the full committee on this. And I appreciate his steadfast support for this broadcast meeting. I know we will make additional technical corrections and tweaks as we look forward and look ahead to the full committee markup. But I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting and forwarding this bill. So we appreciate it very much. Let's pass HR 84 49 for our constituents to have access to a, it's not much to ask for. So thank you very much. And I yell back, recognize the Ranking Member. The Ranking Member of the full committee, Mr. Perone for his five minutes. Okay. So I'll recognize the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, Ms. Schakowsky if she'd like to make any comments, she's okay. Alright, very good. Now I'll recognize yes, Ms. Dingell. Ms. Dingell, I recognize you for your five minutes to make any remarks regarding the bill.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI):

Thank you Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

I recognize you.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI):

Thank you. I want to start off by saying that I agree with what we've heard from numerous stakeholders and constituents. AM radio is an important tool and resource for communities all across the country. Ensuring that all Americans can readily access lifesaving information during emergencies is vital. All consumers must have access to these alerts and that is why I don't think access to these services should be limited to only light duty vehicles. But before I even go there, I want to point out to the committee, I mean we've got to have some discussions, but when we were in committee talking about this, it seems like a year ago, may only have been months ago, immediately went out and talked to the CEOs of the domestic, most of the domestic, the GMs, the Fords, the still is. And they voluntarily said then that they would continue to offer it on their vehicles but also, so I want to point that out and they want to work with us and that they've been really trying to understand all these issues.

But I also think AM radio should be in all vehicles like the title suggests in cars as well as trucks, boats, agriculture and recreational vehicles. I think we need to study those issues. I think they're complicated and I would like to ask that between subcommittee and committee we can look at some of these. For instance, think about the critical role that commercial vehicles, trucks and maritime vehicles play in emergency situations. Emergency vehicles must remain constantly updated with alerts while truck drivers frequently traveling long distances require time. That's not in our committee but we need to look at the different vehicles that require timely information. Moreover, AM radio stations provide indispensable services as you said to agricultural communities offering specialized programs in rural areas. Travelers in remote areas also benefit from AM radio services receiving essential updates on travel emergencies, local news and weather forecast. So I would like to offer an amendment between subcommittee and full committee that would look at that.

We need to be looking at those issues, but we should also be critically examining the future of our emergency communications infrastructure to ensure it offers broad coverage, comprehensive information and reliability during times of crisis, which I know you're trying to do Mr. Chair, this isn't a debate about getting rid of AM radio and considering that 99% of the 286 million vehicles on the road today have AM radio, 90% of new vehicles have AM radio and the average age of vehicles on the road today is more than 12 and a half years old. The vast majority of vehicles will have AM radio for years and decades to come. But I'm raising this because I think we probably need to look at the studies more in detail. I'm concerned about the need to protect consumers' pocketbooks and ensure we have the necessary data to inform the policy and to look at what that might be because, well I know I'm not going to get in trouble naming any companies today, but some are offering, some aren't.

And we want to make sure that I'm trying to behave that all of a sudden we're not going to see consumer prices go up and consumers are going to start yelling at us. And as technology changes down the road as we mandate this, how do we make sure we've got studies that are looking at, is this still current? So I think maybe it would be helpful to the Secretary of Transportation to adjust any AM radio requirements based on objective analysis and research down the road. And it could be also helpful to obtain feedback from various cabinet officials on the potential ramifications of such a federal requirement. So my goal will always be to put the consumer in the driver's seat and that they're the drivers. So I totally believe everybody here knows I went to the companies very strongly and told 'em about the vital role of AM radio. But I think in our enthusiasm of doing something that's right, let's make sure we're doing it right. And so if we could work together on some of those issues between subcommittee and let me be clear, I support AM radio thank you. And I yield back with that.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

I think you've been pretty clear about that. Alright, general lady yields back now I recognize Dr. Bouchon for five minutes in support of the bill.

Rep. Larry Buschon (R-IN):

Thank you Mr. Chairman and the recognition to speak in favor of the bill. Over the last couple of years there's been a trend in the auto industry among electric vehicle producers to remove AM radios from new vehicles. While I'm glad that a select few reversed course to ensure that the platform stays available to Hoosiers as standard in vehicles, the fact remains that this critical broadcasting platform has been standard in vehicles for decades and is now being removed by some. In fact, back in the day when you got a new car, it just had an AM radio and if you wanted more than that you actually had to get an upgrade. While the power may go out or other methods of communication may be disrupted by extreme weather events, the emergency broadcasts over EM radio are specifically engineered to be more resilient.

This is why seven, I repeat, seven former FEMA administrators sent a letter supporting this bill and stressing AM radio's role in promoting public safety. On top of the safety concerns AM radio plays a key role for Hoosiers in rural areas and underserved communities. In my district, for example, minority owned AM broadcasters like WEOA AM out of Evansville, Indiana are staples in their community. They broadcast local high school football games, local news and events, faith-based content and more including all the safety stuff. This is why I'm a proud co-sponsor of the AM Radio for every vehicle act. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time, the gentleman I will yield to Mr. Duncan.

Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC):

I thank the gentleman and chair of the Broadcaster's Caucus. I support AM radio. I support the efforts of this subcommittee and the full committee and the sponsors of this bill to address this issue. I was an auctioneer before I came to Congress. I drove 65,000 miles a year. I was in the truck a lot, AM radio was always available to me, especially late at night when you wanted something just to stimulate you as you were driving. Just to listen to AM radio provided a lot of content that just wasn't music in the background. But I'll say this, driving those 65,000 miles a year and even driving recently, I noticed the DOT signs on the highway that said for traffic and weather alerts turned to AM five 50 or whatever the number was. And consumers do that and they need that ability to find out what might be ahead or if they anticipate inclement weather that may affect their travels to and fro. So I appreciate the work on this. I hope all my colleagues will support it and let's get this done to ensure Americans have access to M Radio, especially on their vehicles. And I yield back and I yield

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Back the balance of my time. Thank you gentlemen. Yields back. We appreciate that very much. Now I'm going to yield to, excuse me, recognize Representative Castor for five minutes in support of this particular bill.

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL):

Well thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm moved to strike the last word

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

You recognize.

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL):

Thank you. I'm very pleased that the committee is working in a bipartisan fashion and advancing the AM Radio for All act. It's a bipartisan bill. It's widely supported and I think you've heard from my colleagues many reasons why it is vital to our neighbors back home. Mr. Duncan. I think you're absolutely right. It provides essential weather alerts, news, community updates. It's truly a community lifeline. And in fact, a recent Nielsen report confirmed that radio continues to reach more American consumers than any other platform, linear or digital. A strong community resource like AM Radio really should be protected. That's why I am proud to lead the separate local Radio Freedom Act. That's a resolution that reaffirms Congress's support for local radio stations and opposes any new fees or taxes on local free broadcast radio. I think Mr. Chairman, you also understand how important radio is to our neighbors back home, especially at times of emergency.

And I agree with you, the testimony of Ms. Span Cooper from Illinois was particularly impactful during our last hearing about how broadcasters provide updates about food and shelter and evacuation routes, not just during the time of crisis, but in the aftermath. At that hearing, as Dr. Buschon mentioned, was also very impactful, was the letter from seven former federal emergency management agency directors who explained that the taxpayers have invested millions of dollars in creating and bolstering the National Public Warning System to communicate with the public at times of crisis, largely through AM radio because it is the only communication system with the reach and the resiliency to ensure that elected leaders and public safety officials can communicate with the public at times of crisis. So for all of these reasons, I support the bill and urge the committee to move it forward

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ):

Will the gentlewoman yield.

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL):

I'm happy to yield to the Ranking Member.

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ):

Well thank you. And I do want to add something. Most of the time myself and chairman, bill and others have talked about the importance of this in times of emergency weather emergencies, other emergencies. Ms. Castor mentioned the National Emergency Warning System, which operates largely through AM radio. And I don't want to take away from that because I experienced firsthand during Superstorm Sandy when our local AM radio stations responded to that crisis by providing a lot of information to people during, after the storm because cell towers and other sources of information were out. But I did also want to mention that many constituents have contacted me over this bill also because of diversity reasons. In other words, what we find is that many times AM radio stations may be in part because they're not expensive to buy, and are purchased by minorities, by people who speak foreign languages that maybe are not as common.

One of the examples at the hearing last month, we heard from an Illinois radio broadcaster and a representative of the Navajo Nation about the vitally important role that AM radio stations and cars provide to the Navajo nation. I also have heard from universities and colleges, student radio stations, which usually are AM stations as well. So as much as we have been emphasizing the importance of this in emergency or natural disasters, I don't want to take from that. That's the primary reason why I think this bill is important. It does. Am ready also provides an important platform for diverse and under representative voices to be heard. And it keeps rural communities connected too. So these are all added reasons, if you will, why this bill should be passed. And I must say, as chairman Bilirakis knows from the very beginning, this has been totally bipartisan on the committee. I've heard from almost every member of the committee about why they want to do this bill. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back my time. I mean I'll yield back to Ms. Castor. Important.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL):

Thank you. General lady yields back. I appreciate it very much. I understand that no amendments are being offered, is that correct? Alright then let's, the question occurs on forwarding HR 84 49 to the full committee. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed the ayes have it and the bill is agreed to. So we appreciate all your cooperation today. I want to take a moment to recognize one of our policy staffers, Michael Cameron, whose last day is Al. Unfortunately, Michael has been a key member of our team advising members and their staff on critical policies moving through the subcommittee over the last several years. We're going to miss him, so we wish him well. I know he's going to do great at his next endeavor and look forward to seeing him and continue to advise us. Unofficially, he does an outstanding job. I'll recognize Ranking Member to have anything else to say. Alright, so without objection, staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes to the legislation approved by the subcommittee today. So ordered without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you.