    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: EXAMINING TRENDS
                            IN INNOVATION AND COMPETITION
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE,
                        REGULATORY REFORM, AND ANTITRUST

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                            WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-13

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    59-906                     WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                            JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

    DARRELL ISSA, California             JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking
    ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                      Member
    TOM McCLINTOCK, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York
    THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin         ZOE LOFGREN, California
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    CHIP ROY, Texas                      HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin              Georgia
    BEN CLINE, Virginia                  ERIC SWALWELL, California
    LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  TED LIEU, California
    JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey       PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
    TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 J. LUIS CORREA, California
    BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
    KEVIN KILEY, California              JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
    HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming          LUCY McBATH, Georgia
    LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
    WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   BECCA BALINT, Vermont
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
    BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina           JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
    MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
    ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
    DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas
    BRANDON GILL, Texas
    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
                                     ------

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE,
                        REGULATORY REFORM, AND ANTITRUST

                       SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin, Chair

    DARRELL ISSA, California             JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking
    BEN CLINE, Virginia                      Member
    LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  J. LUIS CORREA, California
    HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             BECCA BALINT, Vermont
    MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
    DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas                ZOE LOFGREN, California
    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington      HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
                                             Georgia

                   CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
                      JULIE TAGEN, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, April 2, 2025

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    The Honorable Scott Fitzgerald, Chair of the Subcommittee on the
      Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust from the
      State of Wisconsin.............................................     1
    The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee
      on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust
      from the State of New York.....................................     3
    The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary
      from the State of Ohio.........................................     4

                                   WITNESSES

    Neil Chilson, Head, AI Policy, Abundance Institute
      Oral Testimony.................................................     6
      Prepared Testimony.............................................     8
    Joseph V. Coniglio, Director, Antitrust and Innovation Policy;
      Schumpeter Project, Competition Policy, Information Technology
      and Innovation Foundation
      Oral Testimony.................................................    20
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    22
    Jessica Melugin, Director, Center for Technology and Innovation,
      Competitive Enterprise Institute
      Oral Testimony.................................................    28
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    30
    Alvaro M. Bedoya, Former Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
      (FTC)
      Oral Testimony.................................................    33
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    35

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    All materials submitted for the record by the Subcommittee on the
      Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust are
      listed below...................................................    63

    Materials submitted by the Honorable J. Luis Correa, a Member of
      the Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory
      Reform, and Antitrust from the State of California, for the
      record
        An article entitled, ``China's top universities expand
            enrolment to beef up capabilities in AI, strategic
            areas,'' Mar. 10, 2025, The Economic Times
        An article entitled, ``65% Of Top AI Companies Have Immigrant
            Founders,'' Jul. 9, 2023, Forbes
        An article entitled, ``Trump's Science Policies Pose Long-
            Term Risk, Economists Warn,'' Mar. 31, 2025, The New York
            Times
        An article entitled, ``Trump Administration Has Begun a War
            on Science, Researchers Say,'' Mar. 31, 2025, The New
            York Times
        An article entitled, ``China leads world in generative AI
            adoption, underscoring country's progress,'' Jul. 10,
            2024, Reuters
        An article entitled, ``Former Google Employees Create 14 Of
            The Top 50 AI Startups,'' Dec. 9, 2024, Performance
            Marketing Insider
        An article entitled, ``Trump Loves AI But His Tariffs Ramp Up
            Costs for Data Centers,'' Mar. 19, 2025, Bloomberg
        An article entitled, ``Apple chip engineer returns to China,
            joins Fudan University amid push for talent,'' Mar. 31,
            2025, South China Morning Post
        An article entitled, ``Immigrant Entrepreneurs Bring Jobs And
            Innovation, New Research Shows,'' May 23, 2024, Forbes
        An article entitled, ``From underdog to genius: Yale computer
            scientist Sun Huanbo returns to China,'' Mar. 30, 2025,
            South China Morning Post
        An article entitled, ``Tech companies are telling immigrant
            employees on visas not to leave the U.S.,'' Mar. 31,
            2025, Washington Post
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking
      Member of the Subcommittee on the Administrative State,
      Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust from the State of New York,
      for the record
        An article entitled, ``AI Watch: Global regulatory tracker--
            China,'' Apr. 1, 2025, JD Supra
        An article entitled, ``US-China AI Race: AI Policy as
            Industrial Policy,'' Apr. 11, 2023, AI Now Institute
        An article entitled, ``Elon Musk, who co-founded firm behind
            ChatGPT, warns A.I. is `one of the biggest risks' to
            civilization,'' Feb. 15, 2023, CNBC
    An article entitled, ``OpenAI peels back ChatGPT's safeguards
      around image creation,'' Mar. 28, 2025, Tech Crunch, submitted
      by the Honorable Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Member of the
      Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform,
      and Antitrust from the State of Illinois, for the record
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the
      Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, for the
      record
        An article entitled, ``The FTC must be held accountable for
            its widespread leaks of confidential data,'' Oct. 19,
            2024, The Hill
        A letter to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee
            on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, Aug. 26, 2024,
            from Mark Zuckerberg, Founder, Chairman & CEO, Meta
            Platforms, Inc.
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Scott Fitzgerald, Chair of
      the Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory
      Reform, and Antitrust from the State of Wisconsin, for the
      record
        A letter to the Honorable Scott Fitzgerald, Chair of the
            Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory
            Reform, and Antitrust from the State of Wisconsin, and
            the Honorable Jerold Nadler, Ranking Member of the
            Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory
            Reform, and Antitrust from the State of New York, Apr. 8,
            2025, from Morten C. Skroejer Senior Director, Technology
            Competition Policy, SIIA Policy
        A letter to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee
            on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio; the Honorable
            Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on the
            Judiciary from the State of Maryland; the Honorable Scott
            Fitzgerald, Chair of the Subcommittee on the
            Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust
            from the State of Wisconsin; and the Honorable Jerrold
            Nadler, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the
            Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust
            from the State of New York, Apr. 2, 2025, from Gary
            Shapiro, CEO, Vice Chair, Consumer Technology
            Association, and Kinsey Fabrizio, President, Consumer
            Technology Association
        A statement from Jennifer Huddleston, Technology Policy
            Senior Fellow, CATO Institute, Apr. 2, 2025
        A letter to the Honorable Scott Fitzgerald, Chair of the
            Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory
            Reform, and Antitrust from the State of Wisconsin, and
            the Honorable Jerold Nadler, Ranking Member of the
            Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory
            Reform, and Antitrust from the State of New York, Apr. 1,
            2025, from Graham Dufault, General Counsel, ACT | The App
            Association
    An article entitled, ``DOGE Plan to Push AI Across the US Federal
      Government is Wildly Dangerous,'' Mar. 6, 2025, Tech Policy
      Press, submitted by the Honorable Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, a
      Member of the Subcommittee on the Administrative State,
      Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust from the State of Illinois,
      for the record

                                    APPENDIX

    Materials submitted by the Honorable J. Luis Correa, a Member of
      the Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory
      Reform, and Antitrust from the State of California, for the
      record
        An article entitled, ``Australia Urges Universities to
            Diversify Research Away From US,'' Apr. 1, 2025,
            Bloomberg
        An article entitled, ``Trump's Trade War Pushes Canadian Tech
            Workers to Rethink Silicon Valley,'' Mar. 31, 2025, Wired

                     QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD

    Questions submitted by the Honorable J. Luis Correa, a Member of
      the Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory
      Reform, and Antitrust from the State of California, for the
      record

      Questions to Alvaro Bedoya, Former Commissioner, Federal Trade
          Commission, Apr. 2, 2025
      Questions to Neil Chilson, Head, AI Policy, Abundance
          Institute, Apr. 2, 2025
        Response to questions from Neil Chilson, Head, AI Policy,
            Abundance Institute, Oct. 24, 2024
      Questions to Joseph V. Coniglio, Director, Antitrust and
          Innovation Policy; Schumpeter Project, Competition Policy,
          Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Apr. 2,
          2025
        Response to questions from Joseph V. Coniglio, Director,
            Antitrust and Innovation Policy; Schumpeter Project,
            Competition Policy, Information Technology and Innovation
            Foundation, May 1, 2025
      Questions to Jessica Melugin, Director, Center for Technology
          and Innovation, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Apr. 2,
          2025
        Response to questions from Jessica Melugin, Director, Center
            for Technology and Innovation, Competitive Enterprise
            Institute, Apr. 17, 2025

    ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: EXAMINING TRENDS IN INNOVATION AND COMPETITION

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, April 2, 2025

                            House of Representatives

                   Subcommittee on the Administrative State,

                        Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust

                           Committee on the Judiciary

                                 Washington, DC

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
    Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Scott
    Fitzgerald [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Fitzgerald, Cline, Gooden,
    Hageman, Harris, Nadler, Correa, Balint, Garcia, and Johnson.
        Also present: Representative Kiley.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. I want to thank all the Members for being
    here. The Subcommittee will come to order. Without objection,
    the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. We
    welcome everyone to today's hearing on artificial intelligence
    and trends in innovation and competition. I will now recognize
    myself for an opening statement.
        Artificial intelligence, AI, is a powerful new technology,
    and it's moving fast. It already is changing the way businesses
    operate, how people work, and how we solve problems throughout
    our society. From agriculture to manufacturing to customer
    service, AI is showing up in more places every day, and it's
    helping Americans get more done faster and more efficiently.
        There's no doubt this is a big moment for both America and
    the rest of the world, but the question before us today is
    this: Will we respond to it with more freedom or with more
    government control?
        America has always led the way in innovation, not because
    we have the biggest government, but because we have trust in
    our people. We believe in free markets, competition, and
    limited government. That's what built our economy, and that's
    how we've created new technologies from the light bulb to the
    smartphone, and that's why the United States--not China or
    Europe--has been the global leader in innovation for over a
    century. That same model is working in AI.
        The story we hear sometimes is that a few big companies are
    dominating the AI sector. When you look closer, the story
    unravels throughout this industry. There is real competition
    happening at every layer of the AI sector, in cloud
    infrastructure, in AI models, and in tools and applications.
        It's true that big tech plays a role in this sector, but to
    also have startups, open-source developers, university labs,
    and solo engineers pushing the boundaries of this exciting new
    technology. Small businesses are using AI to do things they
    never could afford before: Automate routine tasks, improve
    customer service, analyze data, write content, design products,
    and more.
        AI is helping the little guy compete with the big guys.
    It's lowering the barriers to entry across the board. This
    isn't a monopoly story. It's a success story. It's the free
    market doing what it does best.
        Unfortunately, some in government want to step in and start
    regulating before they even understand what they are
    regulating. They want to create sweeping new rules, or even
    whole new agencies to oversee AI under the claim of safety and
    of fairness. They want to decide which models are, quote,
    ``responsible,'' which tools are, quote, ``approved,'' and
    which approaches are fair and who gets to build what. That's
    very dangerous.
        We see this same saga playing out time and time again.
    Overregulation can kill innovation. When the government inserts
    itself too early, it locks in incumbents, drives up costs, and
    freezes the market, startups get squeezed, the rules benefit
    the insiders, and innovation slows to a crawl.
        Meanwhile, our competitors, especially in China, aren't
    waiting around. They're pouring billions into AI development.
    They're using it to monopolize their military, monitor their
    citizens, and try to leapfrog the U.S. on the global stage to
    the detriment of Democrat principles and values.
        Over in Europe, the EU is rolling out a top-down AI
    regulatory regime that already is causing problems for American
    companies trying to do business overseas. The rules are vague,
    burdensome, and constantly shifting. They've been written by
    bureaucrats who aren't accountable certainly to the American
    people.
        We should not copy China's model of control, and we should
    not copy Europe's model of overregulation. We need to stay true
    to what works, and that is free enterprise, open competition,
    and light-touch regulatory approach that allows innovation to
    flourish.
        That doesn't mean we ignore real problems. We should
    enforce our existing antitrust laws if companies are abusing
    their market power. We should be on guard against fraud, abuse,
    and national security threats. We don't need a heavy-handed new
    regulatory regime to do that.
        What we need is to keep the U.S. the best place in the
    world, to build, test, and deploy AI. That means making room
    for new entrants, it means protecting free speech in the
    digital age, and it means making sure American entrepreneurs,
    not unelected regulators, are the ones shaping the future of
    this technology.
        AI is a tool. Whether it helps or harms depends on how we
    use it, and whether we keep the freedom to innovate, adapt, and
    compete. The worst thing we can do is let fear drive us into
    giving up control to Washington, to Brussels, or to Beijing.
    The American model has always been the best model. Let's stick
    to it.
        I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before us
    today, and I look forward to hearing what each of you has to
    say.
        I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Nadler, for his
    opening statement.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our
    witnesses, particularly to Commissioner Bedoya for joining us
    today.
        As we examine innovation and competition with respect to
    artificial intelligence, we must keep in mind three simple
    truths:

      First, there is no artificial intelligence exception to the
            antitrust and consumer protection laws.
      Second, there is no DOGE exception to Federal privacy
            protections.
      Third, there is no Presidential exception to following
            Federal laws.

        It is a sad comment on the time we find ourselves in that
    these undeniable and basic propositions must be continually
    affirmed. AI technology is rapidly advancing and promises to
    transform our society in ways we cannot even imagine today.
    While AI will deliver many economic and social benefits, it
    also poses tremendous risks that we are just beginning to
    grapple with. With control of AI technology in the hands of
    just a few entrenched companies, it is important that we keep a
    watchful eye on the industry, with thoughtful regulation that
    will foster growth and innovation while protecting consumers.
        One of the most critical tools in this effort is antitrust
    and consumer protection enforcement, led by the Federal Trade
    Commission, an independent administrative agency that was
    created more than 110 years ago by Congress as the Nation was
    beset by powerful monopolies that dominated core industries and
    society. Its specific mission is protecting the public from
    deceptive or unfair business practices and from unfair methods
    of competition.
        Its structure is deliberately bipartisan with no more than
    three members of the five-person commission able to be from a
    single party. This makeup, along with the fact that the
    commissioners are meant to serve staggered seven-year terms,
    and are removable only for very specific causes, is designed to
    increase the independence, and, thereby, the prestige of the
    Commission.
        We need the FTC now more than ever as we confront an AI-
    induced wave of competition, consumer protection, and privacy-
    related issues. Yet, the Trump Administration is undermining
    the single agency best positioned to address them.
        Years before ChatGPT burst onto the scene, the FTC was
    already working to protect consumers by stopping the largest
    semiconductor chip merger in history. Chips are an essential
    input to AI, and blocking this merger helped protect innovation
    by preserving competition for this vital tool. Using their
    unique power as part of the Commission's study function, the
    FTC also produced the report examining AI investments and
    partnerships that would best enable the agency to ensure that,
    when dominant companies pursued these practices, they did not
    undermine competition and innovation.
        With more and more companies relying on AI to make
    fundamental decisions that affect consumers, the FTC has also
    carefully examined the algorithms that power these systems. In
    particular, the commissioners tackled algorithmic bias and
    algorithmic collusion, which is when a computer system
    systematically produces unfair outcomes or is used to engage in
    anticompetitive pricing, respectively.
        This work is essential to ensure that as AI develops, it
    serves the American people. If we are serious about promoting
    competition and innovation in AI, we need a strong FTC to
    enforce the law. Instead, the Trump Administration has done all
    it can to hobble the agency and to weaken enforcement of
    antitrust and consumer protection laws.
        Even more troubling, while with one hand, the
    administration is undermining regulation of AI, with the other
    hand it is handing massive troves of sensitive data on millions
    of Americans to Elon Musk and his DOGE team that could be used
    to deploy AI throughout the government. Governmental processes,
    their workflows, and the use and interpretation of government
    data are highly complex. There is scant evidence, however, that
    AI can be successfully deployed in government on such a far-
    reaching scale.
        Musk and DOGE seem intent on forcing the American people to
    embark on a grand experiment based on little more than their
    faith in AI technology, an experiment that places all our
    privacy and security at great risk.
        While all this unfolds, Commissioner Bedoya should be
    participating in any number of matters protecting consumers.
    Even as a minority commissioner, he and his stellar Democratic
    commissioner, Rebecca Slaughter, occupy an important and
    congressionally mandated role. They are fundamental to infusing
    commission deliberations and decisions with a bipartisan
    dimension.
        Oftentimes, minority commissioners influence the outcome or
    logic of the decision. Even when they do not, they perform the
    essential function of providing transparency into the process,
    including by highlighting key concerns in their dissents.
        Instead of working to enhance competition in the AI
    industry, and ensuring that proper safeguards are in place,
    they're forced to contest their blatantly unlawful termination
    by President Trump. This unprecedented power grab followed
    similar efforts to remove Democratic Members of other
    independent agencies without cause.
        As one court noted, these efforts, quote,

            Threatened to upend fundamental protections in our
            Constitution, but ours is not an autocracy. It is a system of
            checks and balances.

    Just as unchecked power by monopolies in the marketplace does
    not secure the best outcomes for consumers, unchecked
    government power does not secure the best outcomes for our
    democracy. We should be mindful of both points as we begin
    today's hearings.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I yield
    back my time.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize Chair of the Full Committee, Mr. Jordan,
    for his opening statement.
        Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. American innovators
    have always led the world, because we've always protected free
    markets, limited government, and individual liberty. When it
    comes to AI, the Biden Administration turned its back on
    innovators and entrepreneurs.
        Rather than trusting American ingenuity, the Biden
    Administration tried to put Washington in charge, empowering
    unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. Who paid the price?
    The very people we should be empowering. The startups trying to
    challenge big tech, the researchers building open models, the
    platforms that actually support free speech.
        Meanwhile, around the world, we see the dangers of pursuing
    the wrong approach to AI innovation. We see China pouring
    billions of dollars into AI development to weaponize the
    technology. We see Europe smothering innovation with
    overregulation and impossible compliance burdens.
        We should be clear; America must lead on AI. To do that, we
    need to protect free speech, preserve real competition, and get
    the government out of the way. That means (1) no back-door
    censorship; (2) no weaponizing antitrust law to reward
    political allies and punish dissent; and (3) letting no
    international bodies or unelected regulators set the rules for
    American technology.
        Thankfully, President Trump--we have a President focused on
    unleashing American innovation, on cutting red tape, and on
    protecting free expression, and on making sure AI development
    happens here, not in China, not in Europe. Under President
    Trump's leadership, the focus is right where it should be:
    Keeping America competitive, preserving free speech, and
    getting the government out of the way.
        Today's hearing is about how we protect innovation, protect
    liberty, and ensure that AI remains a force for freedom, not
    for control.
        I want to thank our Chair for calling this hearing, and I
    look forward to hearing from our witnesses. I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Gentleman yields back.
        Without objection, all other opening statements will be
    included in the record.
        We will now introduce today's witnesses.
        Mr. Neil Chilson. Mr. Chilson is the head of AI policy at
    the Abundance Institute, a nonprofit organization focused on
    emerging technology. He previously served as the Chief
    Technologist at the Federal Trade Commission and as an attorney
    adviser to then-FTC Acting Chair, Maureen Ohlhausen.
        Mr. Joe Coniglio. Mr. Coniglio is the Director of Antitrust
    and Innovation at the Information Technology and Innovation
    Foundation where he leads the Schumpeter project on competition
    policy. He focuses on digital platform, monopolization policy,
    and dynamic competition.
        Ms. Jessica Melugin. Ms. Melugin is the Director of the
    Center for Technology and Innovation at the Competitive
    Enterprise Institute. Her research focuses on technology
    issues, including antitrust, online privacy, artificial
    intelligence, telecommunications, and other issues.
        Mr. Alvaro Bedoya. Mr. Bedoya is the former Commissioner at
    the Federal Trade Commission. Prior to his appointment to the
    FTC, he founded the Center on Privacy and Technology at the
    Georgetown University Law School.
        We welcome our witnesses and thank them for appearing
    today. We will begin by swearing you in.
        Would you please rise and raise your right hand.
        Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
    testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best
    of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God.
        Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in
    the affirmative. Thank you and please be seated.
        Please know that your written testimony will be entered
    into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you
    summarize your testimony in five minutes.
        Without objection, Mr. Kiley will be permitted to
    participate in today's hearing for the purpose of questioning
    the witnesses if a Member of the Subcommittee yields him time.
        Please know that your written testimony will be entered in
    the in its entirety. Mr. Chilson, you may begin.

                       STATEMENT OF NEIL CHILSON

        Mr. Chilson. Thank you, Chair Fitzgerald, thank you to the
    Chairs and Ranking Members of the Full Committee, and to
    Ranking Member Correa, and the distinguished Members of the
    Subcommittee.
        Thank you for inviting me to testify today. I'm Neil
    Chilson. I'm the head of AI Policy at the Abundance Institute.
    We are a nonprofit dedicated to creating policy and cultural
    environments that allow emerging technologies to thrive and
    expand human prosperity.
        Last year, American AI startups raised more than $97
    billion or approximately half of the entire Apollo program. At
    least 49 different U.S. AI startups raised more than $100
    million just last year. These are record numbers, and they're
    just getting started.
        I'm here to make a simple but important point.
    Economically, AI isn't an industry or a market. It's an
    ecosystem of thousands of companies, and the U.S. AI ecosystem
    is vibrant and remarkably competitive at every level. From
    chips to cloud infrastructure, from foundation models to
    applications, we're seeing intense competition driving rapid
    innovation and democratizing access to powerful AI
    capabilities.
        Consider that 11 different developers last year globally--
    across the globe achieved a GPT-4 level model, one of the most
    advanced types of AI models; or that market shares in cloud
    computing continued to shift with established players and
    startups pressuring each other. The AI enterprise service
    market is highly fragmented, the leading firm holding a mere
    seven percent.
        These are not signs of concentrated power. They're evidence
    of healthy competition. This competitive environment is
    spreading the benefits of AI widely. AI capabilities that were
    cutting-edge, or even unimagined just a few years ago, are now
    widely accessible or even free.
        For example, many of you may have seen the most recent
    generation of Studio Ghibli themes online. This type of use of
    powerful image generation which once required specialized
    knowledge and powerful computers is now available for anyone
    for free or maybe pennies per image.
        AI services keep getting better and cheaper with AI-API
    access for the leading models dropping in price by 80 or 90
    percent last year. Lower prices opened up new use cases and
    power small businesses and new market entrants. Open-source AI
    models are a particularly powerful vector of competition. Open
    models level the playing field, reduce barriers to entry, and
    give smaller players access to cutting-edge AI technology
    without needing massive resources to train their own models.
    This sector is growing fast; Aggregator hugging face, which
    hosts more than a million different open source models for
    different purposes.
        For the most advanced models, open AI just this week, just
    yesterday, announced that they will soon release an open-
    weights model joining major players like Meta and DeepSeek. The
    vibrant AI ecosystem in America does face a threat, however.
    Miscalibrated regulation. Regulation often entrenches incumbent
    firms by creating barriers that new competitors cannot
    overcome, and compliance costs disproportionately burden
    smaller newer firms giving established players a competitive
    advantage.
        The Trump Administration recognizes this threat of
    regulation and has shifted the Federal conversation in AI from
    one that's based on fear to one that's focused on opportunity.
    This is a welcome change.
        At the State level, however, there are more than 900 bills
    proposing to regulate AI, and they've been just introduced
    since January. While often well-intentioned, this emerging
    patchwork of regulation threatens to undermine both domestic
    competition and our national competitiveness.
        Congress should meet this challenge by creating a
    consistent national regulatory approach to AI that maximizes
    freedom for general purpose AI technology, while clarifying
    obligations in specific applications, such as healthcare or
    transportation. There are more detailed ideas in my written
    testimony.
        In conclusion, the U.S. AI ecosystem is remarkably
    competitive and innovative, spreading access to powerful tools.
    To sustain this vibrant competition and to maintain American
    leadership, policymakers should clear regulatory barriers and
    resist raising new ones. By doing so, we can preserve the
    dynamic nature of AI and continue reaping its enormous economic
    and social benefits in the years to come.
        Thank you for your attention, and I welcome your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Chilson follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Chilson. Mr. Coniglio, you
    may begin.

                    STATEMENT OF JOSEPH V. CONIGLIO

        Mr. Coniglio. Chair Fitzgerald, Ranking Member Nadler, and
    Chair Jordan and esteemed Members of the Subcommittee, I'm
    honored to be here today.
        In my remarks, I'm going to highlight three key areas where
    I believe AI and antitrust overlap, and critique three policy
    frameworks for dealing with AI. In my view, AI provides no
    reason at this time for either heavy-handed antitrust
    enforcement or changing fundamentally our antitrust laws.
        First, the AI industry is highly competitive and developing
    in a way that is consistent with the healthy innovation
    competition that typifies high tech markets. Firms like Nvidia
    reinvented themselves with huge success to lead and recoup
    their investments in chips, while a number of newer players,
    like OpenAI and Anthropic, are flourishing at the model level,
    in part, due to partnerships with large digital incumbents.
        Indeed, not only is competition robust among cloud
    providers, it is a testament to big tech firms not resting on
    their laurels, but aggressively also competing at many levels
    of the AI stack.
        Second, AI is already being heralded as the next general-
    purpose technology that, like the internet, will transform our
    economy. As the past four years make clear, the stakes for
    getting competition policy right are high. Whereas, the U.S.
    pursued deregulation and a consumer welfare antitrust model
    that was conducive to the innovation and growth that helped
    preserve its share of global wealth amidst China's rise, Europe
    continued with an antitrust framework more suited to protecting
    competitors, missed the digital revolution and saw its share of
    global wealth fall by almost half.
        Importing a European-style competition policy to America
    risks repeating this mistake with AI and ultimately benefiting
    China in its own quest for AI dominance.
        Third, the question of how AI will affect the antitrust
    enterprise itself. For example, when it comes to combating
    collusion, some have suggested that AI algorithms may make it
    easier for firms to form and police cartel agreements, as well
    as facilitate oligopoly outcomes without an agreement and,
    thus, avoid antitrust scrutiny.
        On the other hand, not only has the Department of Justice
    already brought AI-related algorithmic collusion cases using
    its existing tools, which in the future, could even be enhanced
    by AI technologies that make it easier to detect cartels, but
    AI may also increase firms' incentive to disrupt cartel
    behavior, resulting in less collusion throughout the economy.
        In the face of these complex issues, I want to now discuss
    three flawed antitrust enforcement approaches policymakers may
    be tempted to adopt.
        First, the idea that antitrust is more important than ever
    before. Some worry that AI will increase concentration
    throughout the economy by virtue of network effects and
    increasing returns to scale in ways that make it hard for
    markets to self-correct. These concerns, which result in the
    antitrust laws themselves, overlook the cost-reducing potential
    of AI, which also may lower barriers to entry for small- and
    medium-sized businesses and create competition.
        Moreover, increased concentration not only isn't bad when
    it's driven by lower costs that reduce prices for consumers,
    but it often empowers the incentives and abilities that spur
    innovation.
        Second, there is the contrary view that, because AI is so
    disruptive, there's little need to enforce the antitrust laws
    at all. Indeed, a similar debate was had during the internet
    revolution and noted in the seminal Microsoft case, where the
    court discussed how, in technologically dynamic markets,
    monopoly power may only be temporary. While, like the internet,
    AI is poised to bring tremendous benefits and disruption, the
    past 40 years have taught us to be wary of formalizing
    theoretical assumptions of market self-correction.
        Antitrust still matters, and we should continue to
    carefully examine market realities for anticompetitive conduct
    in age of AI.
        Third, there is the notion that AI may undermine the very
    market competition upon which antitrust law is premised. Some
    commentators have claimed that AI may even render markets
    obsolete through more sophisticated calculation techniques that
    could make regulation superior. The central problem with this
    perspective is that it's based on a static understanding of how
    market competition works.
        More dynamic competitive processes will undercut the
    justification for State central planning and regulation in a
    way that reaffirms the importance of healthy, well-functioning
    markets.
        In conclusion, I think the right approach is to maintain
    antitrust law's traditional focus on promoting competition and
    innovation by prescribing collusive and exclusionary
    anticompetitive conduct. This has, since the passage of the
    Sherman Act, withstood and helped manage the creative
    destruction that worked to make America the world leader that
    it is today. Ensuring that competition policy remains tethered
    to these principles is essential for preserving American
    leadership into the 21st century amidst the new wave of
    general-purpose technical change that is AI.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Coniglio follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Coniglio. Ms. Melugin, you
    may begin.

                      STATEMENT OF JESSICA MELUGIN

        Ms. Melugin. Chair Fitzgerald, Ranking Member Nadler, and
    distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for holding
    this hearing today and inviting me to participate.
        My work focuses on technology and antitrust with the
    Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonpartisan public policy
    organization that concentrates on regulatory issues from a free
    market perspective. I'm also an antitrust and competition
    fellow at the Innovators Network Foundation.
        I am pleased to have the rare opportunity to speak to you
    today about a bipartisan goal: That of ensuring the United
    States remains the leader on artificial intelligence
    technologies.
        While reasonable people can disagree about the challenges
    AI might bring, almost everyone recognizes the technology's
    vast potential for economic efficiency gains, life-saving
    medical breakthroughs, environmental benefits, and more. There
    is similar consensus around the importance of our country
    winning the global race for AI dominance ahead of various
    authoritarian regimes around the world, including China.
        This broad political agreement can be found in last year's
    bipartisan House task force report on artificial intelligence
    that emphasizes the economic and national security importance
    of AI's success for the United States.
        If all agree that a flourishing domestic AI industry is
    critical, we should next identify the biggest threat to
    continued U.S. dominance in the field; namely, government
    overreach. Alongside the growing patchwork of State-level AI
    regulations that I would encourage this Congress to consider
    preempting--but that's a whole other hearing--the threat of
    overzealous antitrust regulation looms large.
        Default antitrust approach to AI in the U.S. should be one
    of humility by regulators. However well-intentioned, antitrust
    enforcers are no better than anyone else in foretelling the
    future and certainly not clairvoyants capable of ex ante
    regulation of a quickly evolving technology.
        Antitrust enforcement in the tech sector has been
    particularly poor. From an abandoned IBM suit that lasted 13
    years to a Microsoft case where innovation in the market
    largely rendered the charges moot, litigating antitrust in tech
    is especially challenging.
        We can look across the pond to the European Union for an
    even more cautionary tale in overregulation and excessive
    antitrust enforcement. The result is that in the U.S., with its
    relatively light-touch regulatory regime and consumer welfare
    driven antitrust approach, we boast eight of the top 10 global
    tech firms by market cap, with Europe unable to claim even one.
        Currently, the EU has an AI regulatory framework much
    larger than its AI industry, putting them on the now familiar
    path to diminished prosperity. We needn't make the same mistake
    here. We know what regulatory framework leads to success and
    can course correct for the harmful antitrust trends of the last
    four years.
        The embrace of a big-is-bad approach to antitrust
    enforcement at the prior administration's Federal Trade
    Commission and Department of Justice must be reversed. It's
    critical that America's AI ecosystem has both large established
    firms with their vast resources for research and development,
    and vibrant small startups with their nimbleness and
    innovation.
        In many cases, startups rely on the expectation of
    eventually being profitably acquired by large firms to secure
    early funding. This is why continued regulatory hostility to
    mergers and acquisitions is a recipe for stifled AI growth.
        We must also return to an economics-based approach to
    identifying competitive problems should they arise. Whatever
    challenges outside of measurable economic concerns AI might
    bring, antitrust law will be the wrong tool for correcting
    them. Refocusing enforcement on consumer welfare and away from
    ambiguous vague social goals will be a productive improvement
    over the last several years.
        What are the current facts on the ground for AI competition
    landscape right now? So far, competition seems to be thriving
    in what is a nonunitary market from hardware to the data layer
    to algorithms and applications.
        Then newcomer OpenAI had a meteoric rise to popularity with
    its debut of ChatGPT in November 2022, and is holding its lead
    over even the biggest established tech competitors as the most-
    used large language model. Those tech giants plan to spend more
    than $300 billion this year investing in AI technologies, which
    is not the behavior one would expect from entrenched
    monopolists insulated from competitive pressures.
        The presence of multiple open source models that allow the
    little guys to build on those already established models
    ensures beneficial competitive pressure and leaves space for
    innovation.
        The current State of competition in AI is strong. The
    threat of premature and unwarranted antitrust intervention
    poses one of the greatest threats to global U.S.
    competitiveness.
        Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Melugin follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Ms. Melugin. Mr. Bedoya, you may
    begin.

                     STATEMENT OF ALVARO M. BEDOYA

        Mr. Bedoya. Thank you, Chair Fitzgerald, Ranking Member
    Nadler, Chair Jordan, and the Members of the Subcommittee.
    Thank you for having me here.
        Right now, people think that a successful AI startup needs
    four things: Chips, cloud, training data, and the people to
    train those models and deploy them. So, right now, there are
    races being run to secure access to those four key inputs.
        In the time I have with you today, I want to issue three
    warnings about those races. First, I want to warn that certain
    agreements between major AI developers and two of the biggest
    cloud service providers may be limiting the availability of
    those cloud providers to those smaller innovative startups.
        Just this January, FTC issued a staff report. We looked at
    three partnerships between the major cloud providers and the
    major AI developers out there. The report showed that cloud
    providers typically got things you expect, equity, a share in
    revenue from those AI developers. The agreements also required
    the AI developers to spend a lot of the investment from the
    cloud provider on cloud services from the cloud provider.
        Now, unfortunately, these kinds of terms may be
    incentivizing those cloud providers to limit access to their
    platforms away from AI startups who they're not partnered with.
    Unfortunately, this is not hypothetical. There were actually--
    there was actually an internal document from one of those cloud
    providers that said, quote,

            We are unable to serve a growing number of startups who need
            bursts of graphics processing unit capacity to train and
            release their models.

        So, I agree, we want a world where a scrappy startup can
    eat a powerful incumbent. We have to ask if these kind of
    agreements, this kind of vertical integration, is leading us
    away from that kind of innovation. That's the first warning.
        I also want to address the race to collect and retain data
    because in the race to scrape by access, all kinds of human-
    generated data, I'm afraid that a lot of AI developers are
    collecting and keeping data that a lot of us would consider
    deeply private.
        So, here's an example. In 2023, the FTC alleged that, by
    default, Alexa was keeping recordings of kids' voices forever,
    and it wasn't just that. Even when parents said, ``Hey, Alexa,
    I want you to delete that,'' Alexa wasn't doing that; it was
    actually keeping the transcripts of that information.
        Now, anyone who is a parent should stop and ask themselves,
    what on Earth does my kid need to say to a smart speaker for me
    to stop everything and say, Oh, no, we need to delete that
    data. That's not what happened.
        Here's a key thing, though. The FTC alleged that one of the
    reasons Alexa--Amazon gave for retaining that data was their
    need to train their voice recognition algorithms. So, that's my
    second warning. We have to remind companies that the need to
    train your algorithm doesn't override the need to follow the
    law, including privacy law and kids' privacy law.
        Here's the third and last flag. There's been a lot of
    attention--and I think for good reason--paid to the apparent
    collection and use of copyrighted works to train models. My
    colleague, Mr. Chilson, mentioned the Studio Ghibli algorithm
    that's out. I'm afraid we aren't paying enough attention to the
    collection and training--of training data about people who are
    in no way famous. Working people. Let me give you a quick
    example.
        During the actors' strike, a prominent director, Justine
    Bateman, posted online asking if any extras--these are folks
    known as background actors--if any of them had ever been asked
    to submit to body scans on set. Suddenly these stories started
    pouring in, people saying, yes, I got tapped on the shoulder, I
    was told to go to this tent, and I stepped in there, and I was
    scanned 360 degrees, head to toe. I asked why; they didn't tell
    me. I asked if I was going to get paid; they didn't give me
    anything. The few people who found out were told, Oh, yes, this
    is to add you in later if we want to. Of course, at no
    additional pay.
        I'm talking about this because scanning people at their
    jobs to replace them at those jobs is becoming common outside
    of Hollywood. So, this is starting to happen in customer
    service call centers. These are jobs that used to provide high
    school graduates with a path to the middle class, but now
    they're rife with surveillance. A lot of that surveillance
    appears to be aimed at recording the best performers to create
    algorithms that are marketed as replacements for the workers at
    those call centers.
        So, in closing, I would respectfully urge the Subcommittee
    to not just look at competition between AIs, but competition
    between AIs and workers, because it raises some pretty
    fundamental questions like how do you compete with a digital
    version of yourself who can work 24 hours a day seven days a
    week with no break, no vacation, and no benefits? Is it fair to
    force you to train your AI replacement? Is it fair to force you
    to do it without your knowledge?
        As I explained in my testimony, I think this is a great
    reason to pass a workplace privacy law.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member Nadler for the
    opportunity to testify. I'm glad to answer any questions you
    may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bedoya follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you very much, Mr. Bedoya.
        I'll now proceed under the five-minute rule with questions.
    I'm going to recognize myself.
        In recent remarks at the AI Summit in Paris, Vice President
    JD Vance stated that AI presents the extraordinary prospect of
    a new industrial revolution, but it will never come to pass if
    overregulation deters innovators from taking the risks
    necessary to advance the ball. He was referring to the European
    Union's Digital Markets Act, and AI Act.
        Ms. Melugin, why would replicating Europe's heavy-handed
    regulation of AI in the U.S. certainly be maybe unwarranted, or
    even premature?
        Ms. Melugin. It's kind of the European Union to have run
    this experiment for us. It has not gone well. Their first big
    attempt at digital regulation, the GDPR ended up hurting the
    entire industry, but mostly hurting the little guy
    disproportionately, which we would see the same here with a lot
    of the regulatory moves. The big entrenched accused
    monopolists, or just market leaders, depending on your
    perspective, might have the resources to comply with a lot of
    those regulations, but the runway is not clear for the next big
    success story.
        That's what you have to keep in mind, that a lot of times,
    the companies that have a seat at the table might be able to
    make this work, but we don't know what's being developed in
    someone's garage right now that can be the next big thing. That
    goes to the general approach in Europe, which has been that if
    you're chilled in your innovation by worrying that everything
    you do, every new business arrangement, every new idea could be
    running afoul of one of the many--the DMA, the DSA, and the
    GDPR, it just has an overall chilling effect on that industry,
    and, of course, relatedly, on investment in that industry.
        Frankly, the U.S. really doesn't have that time. If China--
    I don't think it's an overstatement to say they're nipping at
    our heels in terms of the AI race. What those companies and
    those industries are doing in China is not the regulatory
    framework you see in the U.S., but it's also very much not the
    one you see in the EU. It's no coincidence that you find all
    three of those segments in a different order of success. We
    want to make sure we keep ourselves out front.
        As I said in my testimony, the European Union doesn't have
    one of the top 10 global businesses. Again, that's not to say
    that the small companies aren't important, too, to develop here
    in the U.S. You certainly need the scaling abilities of large
    companies, the research and development resources of these
    large companies. You want a healthy ecosystem with the big guys
    and the small guys. Adopting a European approach won't allow
    that to happen at either level here in the U.S.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The Netherlands-based software firm, Bird,
    which has been recognized kind of globally at this point, is
    moving out of the EU as a direct result of the AI Act. What
    they said was that Europe regulators are just killing
    innovation within the EU.
        You think there's lessons already that can be learned here
    in the States from what we've witnessed on some of these
    examples of what's transpiring overseas?
        Ms. Melugin. Yes. I don't even think you have to abstract
    very much. The EU AI Act that those regulators bragged about
    being the first to regulate AI--which to some of our ears,
    doesn't sound like something to brag about--means that a lot of
    the U.S. companies that rolled out AI products that consumers
    have found incredibly useful, have been very popular here in
    the U.S., they were delayed in Europe because they weren't sure
    that they could comply with all the rules and regulations.
        At the worst-case scenario, you don't get those
    innovations, constituents don't get those services and those
    tools. The best-case scenario is that they're delayed because
    of regulatory overview. Again, that's an example where the
    little guy who is innovating something new maybe doesn't have
    the team of lawyers that the big guys do. I don't think we want
    to set up that dynamic here in the U.S.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good. Mr. Coniglio, you just cautioned
    against overregulation in your testimony. You note that robust
    antitrust enforcement promote customer welfare and innovation
    to remain a policy focus. Can you just elaborate kind of
    further on that point?
        Mr. Coniglio. Absolutely. Thank you for the question.
        Ms. Melugin pointed out the lessons we learned from
    regulation. I will note, the U.S. also has some lessons that it
    learned from deregulation about how deregulation can spur
    economic growth and innovation. There's also a very important
    story to tell regarding competition policy, and specifically,
    two different approaches that were taken over the past 40 years
    between America and Europe on competition policy.
        At a high level, Europe's approach was very much focused on
    protecting competitors. It wanted to see markets where there
    were a lot of small firms. America's approach was focused on
    not condemning size in and of itself but focusing on consumer
    welfare and innovation.
        If you look most recently at the Draghi report that was
    issued in Europe, it was very clear that the digital revolution
    that happened in America has really driven the productivity gap
    between the United States and Europe that's occurred. Antitrust
    is not the sole reason for that, but I think it's part of the
    reason. Because if you have an antitrust policy that's not
    conducive to innovation and consumer welfare, and instead,
    focusing on protecting small competitors, you're not going to
    see the dynamic innovation competition that's really driven the
    digital industry in America, and which, in part, large firms
    can also play a big role in driving that innovation.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you very much. My time has expired.
        I'm going to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Nadler, for
    five minutes.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Commissioner Bedoya, one of the many areas in which the
    Federal Trade Commission has distinguished itself in its
    groundbreak-
    ing activity to combat anticompetitive practices in the
    pharmaceutical industry. Whether it's the pay-for-delay cases
    or efforts to fight misuse of the FDA publication called the
    Orange Book, the FTC has been at the cutting-edge.
        That's why I was so disturbed to see that yesterday, the
    FTC's general counsel stayed the administrative adjudication of
    the commissioner's case against the three largest pharmacy
    benefit managers over the price of insulin. The effort to bring
    down prices for consumers is just one example of the work you
    were doing before President Trump attempted to remove you from
    office.
        Can you explain the costs to be borne by consumers
    associated with the President's unlawful attempt to fire you
    and Commissioner Slaughter?
        Mr. Bedoya. Thank you, Ranking Member Nadler. Maybe I can
    just talk about this case. I'm pretty sure everyone in the room
    cares about the cost of insulin. This is a case where FTC staff
    is alleging that these pharmacy middlemen--they're called PBMs,
    pharmacy benefit managers--are competing not to lower the price
    of insulin, which is how markets normally should work, they
    allege instead that these pharmacy middlemen are competing to
    raise the price of insulin.
        Commissioner Slaughter, who I'm joined--
        Mr. Nadler. Competing or colluding?
        Mr. Bedoya. Pardon me? I didn't hear the first part--
        Mr. Nadler. Competing or colluding?
        Mr. Bedoya. What was the first--beating or colluding?
        Mr. Nadler. Competing or colluding?
        Mr. Bedoya. Competing. The allegation in the complaint is
    there's competition to raise the prices.
        I'm joined by Commissioner Slaughter. She and I are the
    only judges who are presiding over that case in an appellate
    manner because our colleagues, Chair Ferguson and Commissioner
    Holyoak, are both recused.
        Now that it's the administration's contention that we are
    removed, there are no judges to adjudicate that case. The
    pharmacy middlemen have moved to stay it. That move--that stay
    was granted--that request for stay was granted yesterday, and
    this case won't be adjudicated for at least another 105 days.
    That's 3\1/2\ months. The evidentiary hearing, I understand,
    will occur even later.
        Basically, it's permanent--not permanently, but
    indefinitely on ice, and I don't think anybody wins from having
    a case like that not adjudicated.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you. We know that, unfortunately, one of
    the ways new technologies is deployed is to find ways to break
    the law. Is computer-generated pricing or algorithmic pricing
    being deployed to violate the antitrust laws, and what can the
    FTC do about it?
        Mr. Bedoya. One of the things we're hearing a lot are
    allegations that, instead of outright colluding--to use your
    term--just sitting down in a smoky room like the Beef Trust did
    in Chicago in the early 1900s and just set prices.
        What a lot of competitors are doing is saying, Oh, no, no,
    we compete, but we happen to use the same algorithmic pricing
    software. Although there are allegations, for example, in the
    RealPage lawsuit from DOJ that they are, in fact, also picking
    up the phone and just straight up colluding, increasingly what
    you see are cases where they just use the same software. This
    is absolutely a core concern.
        The FTC has issued various requests for information around
    aspects of this. We issued an interim report around algorithmic
    pricing in January, and it's something we need to continue to
    track closely.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you. We all recognize that AI carries
    with an enormous potential, as well as possible perils. We also
    all recognize that it's a field that continues to develop often
    at a rapid clip.
        Can you explain why the FTC's involvement in evolving
    industries, even while they're undergoing changes, is a good
    thing?
        Mr. Bedoya. Absolutely. I understand folks who say, ``You
    don't want too aggressive antitrust enforcement, that's a bad
    thing.'' For me, the case that jumps out is the case you
    mentioned, the proposed Nvidia-Arm merger. Nvidia is a chip
    supplier, Arm is a chip designer; it's a vertical deal. Arm was
    valued at the time of that deal at $40 billion. FTC sued. They
    dropped that merger. As of 9:58 this morning, Arm was valued at
    $114 billion.
        The answer to your question, Congressman Nadler, is that's
    so the market can continue to evolve; so that scrappy startup
    can access all of these critical resources that the companies
    like these provide without the limitations like the ones I
    referenced in my opening statement where the incumbents are
    getting locked in and startups are getting squeezed out.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
        Finally, fields of law--all fields of law can and should
    evolve over time. In recent years, there's been increased
    attention as to how competition affects not only consumers, but
    also workers.
        With that perspective in mind, how should we be thinking
    about how AI might impact the American workforce?
        Mr. Bedoya. I would say the biggest thing people are not
    talking about is the need for some kind of protection for
    workers in the workplace so that they just can't be scanned
    head to toe and replaced by algorithms. This isn't no longer a
    thing from Hollywood. This is something you're seeing in jobs
    like call centers, online therapy, et cetera.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Gentleman's time has--
        Mr. Nadler. My time has expired. I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. I now recognize the gentleman from Texas,
    Mr. Gooden.
        Mr. Gooden. Thank you. Ms. Melugin, the Biden
    Administration passed sweeping Executive Orders on AI which
    weren't authorized by any congressional action or directive.
        Do you think the previous administration bypassed Congress
    and micromanaged AI development without public accountability?
        Ms. Melugin. Yes.
        Mr. Gooden. Would you like to comment further?
        Ms. Melugin. Sure. I do. I think that it's a perfect
    example of the rush to regulate. What you are doing here today
    is having a very constructive conversation about one aspect of
    AI, and that's to be applauded.
        Coming out with an EO that puts large restrictions on how
    people are allowed to innovate, testing, rules that haven't
    really been put through either the common-law process in the
    courts or a congressional process is always a mistake. Even if
    I had agreed with the rules that were there, I wouldn't support
    it. I didn't. The lifting of that executive order with the
    current administration is generally a very positive step.
        Mr. Gooden. What role should Congress play, in your mind,
    in ensuring that AI governance reflects competitive neutrality,
    market dynamics, and constitutional accountability?
        Ms. Melugin. As I somewhat snarkily mentioned in my
    testimony, I do think that the biggest thing Congress could do
    would be to consider preempting the rush of State regulations
    on AI. I think there's very well-intentioned State legislators.
    They see that Congress isn't moving on this. They want to do
    something.
        A patchwork of potentially 50-plus different regulatory
    regimes for AI is the kind of hurdle that could really slow
    U.S. innovators down, and certainly not the kind of hurdle that
    they're facing in China. It's an infinitely, like,
    unpolitically satisfying answer, but I think Federal preemption
    should be something serious lawmakers consider.
        To the antitrust question that we're talking about today,
    let's wait and see until what problems arise, and also, what
    laws and tools are already on the books that regulators and
    lawmakers can use to react to those problems. Price fixing is
    still price fixing, whether it's done in a smoky room with
    meat--which actually sounds kind of great, the meat part.
        Mr. Bedoya. The meat wasn't--
        Ms. Melugin. The meat wasn't--OK. It was a good visual,
    though. I want to give you full credit for that--or done with
    AI technology in an algorithm. These things are still illegal.
    Fraud is still illegal whether it's--whatever kind of
    technology you use.
        Taking things on a case-by-case basis is a smarter approach
    to not making the mistake of overregulating and hurting
    innovation in the U.S.
        Mr. Gooden. You mentioned China. Do you feel--where do we
    rank in terms of attracting investors, and are we doing better
    or worse than China with respect to AI?
        Ms. Melugin. Well, I think the structure is so different,
    right? Happily, it's private investment here in the U.S. for
    the most part. China is pouring billions of dollars into these
    technologies, and I do think that without tying one arm behind
    our back, my money is on the U.S. I would innovate always.
        I do think that this State patchwork of regulations or
    unwarranted and overzealous antitrust intervention could put us
    at a real disadvantage. We've been saying, there's different
    points along the AI ecosystem. It's hard to give you one answer
    about all of it, but it's a close race.
        Mr. Gooden. Thank you. Yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Gentleman yields back.
        Gentleman from California is now recognized for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to welcome our
    witnesses today.
        Every day in the newspaper, something new with AI, new
    developments, new companies, competition, innovation,
    medicines, new medicines, drug developments, manufacturing, and
    supply chains. A lot of good stuff. I do believe we need
    guardrails, but they have to be guardrails that don't harm
    innovation or harm American firms.
        The U.S. right now, we, the United States, still lead the
    world, used to be by a couple of years. Now, it's maybe two
    months, maybe couple of weeks, compared to China.
        Mr. Chilson and Mr. Coniglio, if I can ask each one of you
    a yes-or-no question. Gentlemen, would you say that university
    research played an enormous role in developing AI? Yes, no?
        Mr. Chilson. Yes, over the 40 years.
        Mr. Correa. Mr. Coniglio?
        Mr. Coniglio. Yes, I would say the same.
        Mr. Correa. If you look at this chart, you can see that it
    is, in fact, true. Private companies are developing and
    investing in AI.
        Second question, gentlemen: The future workforce, training
    that AI workforce, research still happening at universities,
    correct?
        Mr. Chilson. I think some of it. Lots of companies--
        Mr. Correa. Some of it. OK. Mr. Coniglio?
        Mr. Coniglio. I would agree.
        Mr. Correa. If we cut out funding for university research
    today, are we damaging the American pipeline, students--future
    students who become leaders in AI, fundamental research, are we
    hurting ourselves by cutting off university research funding?
    Mr. Chilson, Mr. Coniglio? Yes, no?
        Mr. Chilson. I'm honestly not sure.
        Mr. Correa. Mr. Coniglio?
        Mr. Coniglio. I would certainly say that funding from
    universities is very important to drive innovation. That's true
    generally, yes.
        Mr. Correa. I say that in the context of our main
    competitor, which is China, which are essentially doubling down
    their investment in this area. That's well-established; that's
    well-known.
        Now, let's look at this chart of some of the top AI
    companies. Data from 2023. Many of these firms are started by
    immigrants. This is in 2023. Can you imagine the number of
    immigrants started AI firms for 2024? Probably a whole lot
    more. This doesn't even reflect major tech started by Sergey
    Brin of Google or Elon Musk.
        So, gentlemen, another question for you. Do you agree that
    immigrants have played a huge role in developing and advancing
    technology in AI sectors? Yes, no?
        Mr. Chilson. Absolutely.
        Mr. Correa. Mr. Coniglio?
        Mr. Coniglio. Yes.
        Mr. Correa. This country--we really want immigrants in this
    country who can contribute to innovation, and we don't want to
    scare them away, have them go to Canada, China, India, not even
    come to this country. Would you say that's--yes, no, Mr.
    Chilson?
        Mr. Chilson. America is the best place to do AI in the
    world.
        Mr. Correa. Mr. Coniglio?
        Mr. Coniglio. I would agree we need to keep America an AI
    leader and use all tools we can to make that happen.
        Mr. Correa. Over the last 50--more like 100-200 years,
    America has always attracted the best and brightest from around
    the world because they know opportunities in this country
    exist.
        I agree that overregulation, misplacement of antitrust
    enforcement can harm AI, can harm this country's companies as
    they seek to compete with China. I'll tell you, looking at this
    administration's policies of cutting research funding to
    universities, scaring immigrants away from studying or creating
    new companies in the U.S., creation of unstable markets through
    tariffs, these three factors, in my opinion, are going to hurt
    this country even more; long-term damage, long-term damage to
    our leadership, and our economy in the future. I do hope we
    begin to focus on what's made this country great, what helped
    us in the last 50 years innovating, leading the world because
    we can't afford to lose the AI race.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I yield.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Gentleman yields.
        Mr. Correa. Can I add some articles for the record?
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Correa. Chair, I'd like to ask unanimous consent to
    introduce the following articles:

        (1)   ``China's top universities expand enrollment to beef
    up capabilities in AI.''
        (2)   ``65 percent of top AI companies have immigrant
    founders.''
        (3)   ``Trump's science policies pose long-term risks,''
    New York Times, March 31st.
        (4)   ``Trump administration has begun a war on science
    researchers,'' New York Times, March 31st.
        (5)   ``China leads the world in generative AI adoption.''
        (6)   ``Former Google employees create 14 of the top 50 AI
    startups.''
        (7)   ``Trump loves AI, but his tariffs ramp up costs for
    data centers.''
        (8)   ``Apple chip engineers return to China. Joins Fudan
    University amid push for talent.''
        (9)   ``Immigrant entrepreneurs bring jobs and
    innovation,'' Forbes, May 23, 2024.
        (10)  ``From underdog to genius, Yale computer scientist,
    Sun Huanbo, returns to China.''
        (11)  ``Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on
    visas not to leave the U.S.''

        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is now
    recognized for five minutes.
        Ms. Hageman. Thank you. China is trying to control the
    global AI sector through extensive state-directed investments,
    aggressive subsidies, and protectionist trade measures. It is
    making substantial investments to secure its global position
    through initiatives like Made in China 2025 and the New
    Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan.
        Mr. Chilson, how might China's government subsidies and
    protectionist policies affect global competition in AI?
        Mr. Chilson. China's model for AI innovation is very
    different than the U.S. It's largely State-sponsored. It is
    driven through a structure that is designed to make sure that
    the Chinese Communist Party has its finger in everything, and
    it means that the end result is designed from the top
    ecosystem. They pour a lot of money into this, and they have
    talented people, and so they do have surprises occasionally.
    The deep seek AI model that came out, they can get a lot done
    with that model.
        Ultimately, however, the U.S. model, if we don't tie one or
    both hands behind our back, is going to win in this space,
    because we have the talent, we have the investment, and we have
    the ecosystem that rewards trying new things out and seeing if
    they work. I worry a lot about China. I think modeling our--and
    this is why I was a little bit confused about the university
    question. A top-down investment model that tries to look like
    China is not the right model for the U.S.
        Ms. Hageman. I'm glad to hear that, and I'm also excited to
    hear about your optimism, because what would be the strategic
    consequences if China achieved dominance in the global AI
    space?
        Mr. Chilson. Well, there's a lot of different consequences.
    We can just look at cultural ones. We can look at strategic
    national security ones, and those are the ones that raise the
    most eyebrows.
        Ms. Hageman. Can you give me some examples?
        Mr. Chilson. Yes. This technology is very powerful, both in
    an offensive and defensive manner for cybersecurity, so both to
    defend from cybersecurity attacks and to cause them, and so,
    being ahead in that race matters a lot. A lot of our
    infrastructure in the U.S. obviously is--needs to be strong
    against those types of attacks, and I think that AI has a huge
    potential to be a defensive barrier to those types of things,
    but we need to stay ahead in the race.
        Ms. Hageman. Well, I agree with you on that as well. This
    Committee has observed with concern harmful policies also
    coming from the EU on privacy, antitrust censorship, and more.
    Now, the Artificial Intelligence Act will impose significant
    compliance costs on affected companies, particularly American
    businesses that play a pivotal role within the AI sector.
        Mr. Coniglio, how should we, as Members of Congress, be
    concerned about the impact of this framework on our constituent
    businesses, and are there specific ways in which the EU
    regulations might disadvantage smaller American AI companies as
    compared to larger firms?
        Mr. Coniglio. Thank you very much for the question,
    Congresswoman. I would say we should be very concerned about
    the regulatory approach that the European Union is taking, not
    just with the AI Act. One of the things I would say they did
    learn from the GDPR is now to do regulation that targets
    American firms, specifically, so that they don't burden their
    smaller firms with regulation. That's really been the lesson
    with the DMA, which is absolutely disproportionately having
    very harmful effects on American businesses, really our tech
    leaders, and it was intended to do so. As I recall a letter
    from Chair Jordan, starting to investigate those practices is
    very important and something we need to continue to do.
        Ms. Hageman. Do you have recommendations as to what
    Congress specifically ought to do in this space?
        Mr. Coniglio. It's a very complicated area. I would note
    with respect to potential legislation; in Korea, there was a
    proposed bill by Representative Miller, I believe, to talk
    about potential tools in a trade area that could be used to the
    extent that regulations are being basically weaponized as de
    facto protectionist policies against American companies, and I
    think that might absolutely be the right framework to think
    about it.
        Ms. Hageman. OK. Mr. Chilson, in your testimony, you cite
    how competition is robust and global across all layers of the
    AI stack. How should Congress consider protecting American
    companies in such an environment, or is such a policy even
    achievable or worthy of consideration?
        Mr. Chilson. American companies lead the world in this, so
    I don't know that they need protection from Congress, but what
    they do need is the ability to continue to innovate, build, get
    the supplies and the data that they need, and there's a lot in
    the regulatory space that Congress could work on. In
    particular, we've mentioned it a couple times, but one of the
    biggest threats is well-intentioned, but often very abstract
    and not well-developed, state-level regulation, which could
    limit a lot of this innovation.
        Ms. Hageman. So, preemption is important?
        Mr. Coniglio. I think it's very important.
        Ms. Hageman. Thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Gentlewoman's time has expired and now--
        Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent request.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I'd like to enter in the
    record an article ``AI Watch Global Regulatory Tracker'' that
    details how many more regulations than the U.S. does on AI
    development and deployment.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The gentlewoman from Vermont is now
    recognized for five minutes.
        Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Commissioner Bedoya, thank you so much for being here, and
    Commissioner Slaughter, it's really nice to see you.
    Commissioner Bedoya, as commissioner at the FTC, your
    experience of competition, artificial intelligence, and how
    these things affect everyday people is extremely important to
    this discussion. We all understand that we're in the early days
    of what may be a massively transformational technological
    moment. It's plausible that this may be like the emergence of
    the internet, the mobile phone, or really even electricity.
    It's so important that we don't lose sight of the central point
    here, which is how does this technology help or hurt working
    people? That's what I'm focused on.
        Commissioner Bedoya, you spent a great deal of time as FTC
    commissioner outside of D.C. traveling around the country,
    hearing from people, and I want to know, have you heard a sense
    of concern from people, working people, about how AI is
    impacting their lives?
        Mr. Bedoya. Sure. I confess a lot of my roundtables are
    focused on groceries, pharmacy, and that kind of thing.
        Ms. Balint. Everyday costs.
        Mr. Bedoya. What's that?
        Ms. Balint. Everyday costs.
        Mr. Bedoya. Everyday costs, that's right. I will say a
    couple things on this. A lot of people look at what happened
    around the actors and writers strikes and they say, ``Oh,
    that's just a Hollywood thing,'' but entry level actors and
    entry level writers don't make that much money, and you had
    situations where people were quite worried, and with good
    reason, that the cost of selling your first script was going to
    be to submit all your work to be fed into one of these AIs so
    that there would be no need to hire you in the future.
        I also do think there have been a lot of concerns, my
    colleague Commissioner slaughter has done a roundtable on this,
    on the use of price fixing algorithms in rental housing
    markets.
        Ms. Balint. That's where I'm going.
        Mr. Bedoya. Yes. That's a real concern.
        Ms. Balint. That's exactly where I'm going. Let's jump to
    that, because this is a deep concern of mine. Could you tell us
    in real terms, because you had talked about earlier that it's
    not just the algorithm itself in terms of real page, but there
    seems to be instances that we can look at, there seems to be
    evidence that there is actually some collusion happening here.
    That's something that I'm deeply concerned about, and we all
    should. There is a crisis of housing in this country and
    renters are over a barrel right now. They don't have a lot of
    options. Can you talk a little bit about how this is impacting
    regular people just in terms of trying to afford the rental
    housing.
        Mr. Bedoya. Sure. The allegations in this space are that
    these algorithms don't just offer the exact right amount of an
    increase so that a renter swallows the increase rather than
    tries to find a different place. There're allegations of actual
    overt in the RealPage lawsuit calling between landlords to
    coordinate, but there's also allegedly information sharing
    creating a pool of data that these landlords can draw on to
    increase rent without saying--while being able to say, Oh, we
    never called each other.
        One really interesting point here is sometimes antitrust
    harms, because they're a little complex, can get a little
    technical. I'll just point out that one of the corporate
    landlords in the RealPage suit is a company called GreyStar.
    FTC is also simultaneously suing GreyStar for packing people's
    rent checks with these fake hidden fees, like, Oh, you want no
    cockroaches in your apartment? You've got to pay extra for
    that.
        Ms. Balint. Pay extra for no cockroaches, huh?
        Mr. Bedoya. Precisely. You see anticompetitive conduct arm
    in arm with conduct that hurts consumers, in my view, pretty
    obviously.
        Ms. Balint. I do think it's important in this hearing as we
    talk about the importance of not stifling innovation to, at the
    same time, be able to hold both truths. We can be careful in
    our regulations. We can be careful in the guardrails that we're
    putting on, but I don't think anyone here, at least I hope not,
    that anyone on the Antitrust Committee would be supportive of
    landlords colluding to raise the price of rent, and I know in
    some instances, we've seen that this AI dynamic pricing scheme
    has led to increases of over $800 over the course of a year of
    not just these hidden fees that we're talking about, but the
    prices that they're paying for rent itself.
        Of course, you've talked about how essential workers are
    being replaced in key industries, where we see patients
    illegally being denied care because of an AI-based
    recommendation, where artists are being robbed of their work. I
    just have to say, we have got to remember the importance of
    following the law when it comes to having FTC commissioners,
    and I think it's outrageous that you and Commissioner Slaughter
    were illegally removed from your positions. We need you on the
    watch to take care of my renters back home in Vermont who are
    being screwed over.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Gentlewoman's time is expired.
        Ms. Balint. I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Gentlewoman yields back. I now recognize
    the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Harris, for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all of you
    on the panel for being a part of this hearing today. On January
    23, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled,
    ``Removing Barriers to American Leadership and Artificial
    Intelligence,'' aimed at solidifying the United States'
    position as the global leader in AI. I, for one, applaud the
    Trump Administration's leadership on this issue.
        Mr. Chilson, would you just take a moment and explain how
    this Executive Order will indeed help solidify our position as
    the global leader in AI as the EO states?
        Mr. Chilson. Well, it's a sea change from the Biden
    Executive Order, which was the third longest Executive Order in
    history, and basically set a governmentwide call for agencies
    to figure out how to regulate AI. This Trump Executive Order is
    the opposite. It's focused on figuring out how we can create
    the opportunities, or how can we maximize the opportunities
    from this amazing technology which is grown here in America.
        Some of its mechanisms. It directs the Office of Science
    and Technology Planning to create an AI action plan. Those
    comments have gone into that agency, and they're going to come
    out with a comprehensive approach.
        The main thing here is the total change in perspective.
    It's gone from fear and risk that this technology is going to
    hurt people to recognizing that it has huge opportunities, not
    just for consumers, not just for everyday price--everyday
    things that they use, but also, in creating a lot of
    competition in the AI industry, but also across the economy as
    a whole.
        Mr. Harris. You reference the science and technology
    policy. I know Section 4 of Trump's Executive Order requires
    various executive agencies to coordinate on the creation of an
    action plan to submit to the President in 180 days, and the
    action plan should lay out how we can achieve AI dominance. You
    and your colleague, Mr. Chilson, I understand that the
    Abundance Institute submitted recommendations to the Office of
    Science and Technology Policy on what should be included in
    that action plan. Could you take just a moment and summarize
    what your recommendations might be?
        Mr. Chilson. Right. At the very top, you've heard this
    concern repeatedly across this hearing is stemming the tide,
    the flowing tide of State AI regulations. What we have right
    now is a set of regulatory schemes that regulate from the very
    top, the most abstract level of AI, these general-purpose
    models. It's a general-purpose technology that can be used in
    millions of different ways, and States are trying to say that
    these companies have to make sure that this model can never be
    used in a way that might hurt somebody, and that's the type of
    regulation that is not only impossible to comply with, it will
    be impossible to enforce as well.
        Congress needs to look at this--the White House needs to
    look at different ways to stem this tide, whether through the
    bully pulpit or proposing legislation to Congress that will
    help stem that flow. I think it's a big challenge in Congress,
    and the White House needs to step up to that.
        Mr. Harris. Well, let me ask you this: Can Congress play a
    role in helping the United States achieve the goals that have
    been set forth in the Executive Order?
        Mr. Chilson. Absolutely. It will be essential that Congress
    does so.
        Mr. Harris. OK. Are there any legislative efforts that will
    bring us toward the vision set forth by the Trump
    Administration?
        Mr. Chilson. Well, I think there's a lot of different
    models we can take. One State action that has been very useful,
    Utah has an AI act that creates an AI learning laboratory where
    people can come in, get regulatory mitigation when they don't
    understand fully what the risks are because their technology is
    new, and both the legislators and the company can learn
    together.
        The most recent example of this was a technology that
    creates--it's an AI mental wellness app for teenagers, a really
    important problem. You can understand the sensitivity there.
    They worked with this regulatory sandbox to create not only
    just the app itself, but also there's been legislation that was
    proposed to Utah to the legislature that governed some of those
    types of apps, and so it's a cooperative thing. It's the kind
    of structure that might work very well at the Federal level as
    well.
        Mr. Harris. Very good. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
    Illinois is now recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to all the witnesses
    here today, to Commissioner Slaughter for also being here to
    observe the proceedings.
        As usual, so far in this hearing, it looks like my
    colleagues, the Republican side of this panel, is here to
    champion corporate interest over workers and consumers. Today,
    their obedience is making them argue against even reasonable
    regulation of the AI industry. While not surprising, it's still
    incredible to see them making these claims with a straight face
    given everything that's going on.
        Let's start with the fact that the Trump Administration and
    its billionaire overlord, Elon Musk, are weaponizing AI to
    carry out their lawless and unpopular agenda. They're using AI
    to arbitrarily surveil students, expand the power of DHS and
    ICE and gut Federal agencies. In the hands of billionaires and
    authoritarians, like Musk and Trump, AI is a loaded gun waiting
    to be used on immigrants, workers, and consumers. This is
    exactly why it's absurd to oppose commonsense regulation of the
    AI industry.
        Let's talk about what that commonsense could be. It's also
    absurd, because we know what happens when we don't enforce
    antitrust and consumer protection laws against technology
    companies. As my colleagues have pointed out, the failure to
    apply these laws to big tech companies at the dawn of the
    social media age has led to the dominance of these companies,
    which have routinely abused workers, exploited consumers,
    deployed their technology to expand surveillance, and trample
    on privacy rights. That is the consequence of inaction. We must
    learn that from our mistakes and we must prioritize workers and
    consumers over corporate profits.
        Let's talk about what that looks like. Commissioner Bedoya,
    thank you for being here today. I stand in solidarity with you
    as you face Donald Trump's illegal efforts to fire you and
    Commissioner Slaughter. Can you talk about the competition
    between AI, if it exists, and workers and the implications for
    labor rights?
        Mr. Bedoya. Sure. I was down in Bayou La Batre, Alabama, a
    couple months ago, and there was a case from Pascagoula, which
    is right near there, of a call center worker who had a high
    school diploma, a single mom, and she had been able to take
    this job and find the middle class. She bought a house, nice
    neighborhood, great schools. What was starting to happen is
    that there was this AI transcript that was being generated of
    her calls, but it was wrong.
        People on the Gulf, my wife from Louisiana, have a
    different cadence, different accent slightly, and the AI-
    generated transcript was failing, and she would get docked for
    those errors. One of the things she openly wondered was--
    because there was also other software operating that the
    workers thought was going to be used to replace them. She
    openly wondered, ``am I training my replacement?'' These are
    the kind of folks who may be hurt by these efforts to scan,
    track, surveil, and swallow up all this data about people
    working really important jobs that might be used to replace
    them.
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you for sharing that, and from basically
    on your work at the Federal Trade Commission, what kinds of
    protection do you think are needed for workers if Congress were
    to act?
        Mr. Bedoya. I've already mentioned the need for workplace
    privacy law. The other thing we urgently need in my personal
    view is some kind of guardrail against automated management.
    Increasingly, you're seeing allegations that people are getting
    fired automatically on the job because of the way they were
    tracked. Maybe it was thought that they were just loafing
    around when they were actually going to the bathroom, when they
    were actually repairing the machinery on the warehouse floor.
        You also see instances where people are increasingly having
    their emotions analyzed on the job. This is another call center
    example. There was an AI that thought that set off this emotion
    distress alarm anytime the caller at the end of the line
    started laughing, and so you have technology that doesn't work
    as well as people think it does, being used to fire people,
    dock their pay, and there need to be guardrails around that
    kind of conduct.
        Labor unions have often succeeded in putting those
    protections in place, but I think everyone needs those kinds of
    protections, not just folks who are lucky enough to be in a
    union.
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you. My time is exhausted.
        Mr. Chair, before I turn it back, I seek unanimous consent
    to submit an article entitled--
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you. ``Open AI Peels Back ChatGPT
    Safeguards Around Image Creation.''
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
    Virginia is now recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        My goodness, after hearing my friend from California talk,
    I'm reminded of the old adage, ``when you're a hammer
    everything looks like a nail.'' When you're a proregulatory
    Democrat, everything--every industry, every opportunity to
    regulate means dive right in and regulate.
        Ms. Melugin, can you speak to what would happen to the AI
    industry if the U.S. were to adopt heavy-handed regulations.
    Which country are we in competition with right now that would
    take advantage of that and further run away with development in
    AI?
        Ms. Melugin. If American innovators are sufficiently
    distracted with regulatory hurdles and legal concerns; you are
    taking a limited amount of energy and resources away from them
    turning out the best product. At that point the alternative for
    much of the world will be Chinese products. The Meta question
    to keep in mind is do you want the world building on U.S.-based
    products or China-based products?
        That's not to say that the illegal things that happen in
    relation to AI shouldn't be addressed. In large part, due to
    already existing law or that Congress might not consider new
    privacy legislation, those are all things that can be
    considered when problems arise. It's important to not lose
    sight of what we're here to do. I don't think that most
    Americans are looking for AI to be really, really regulated.
    They're looking for AI to be really, really prosperous and
    successful.
        Mr. Cline. Well, to that end, China has a long history of
    intellectual property theft, particularly in AI and
    semiconductor technology. How can the U.S. better protect its
    AI industry from Chinese espionage, and should we be more
    aggressive in sanctioning Chinese companies that benefit from
    stolen IP?
        Ms. Melugin. Some obviously, but to the extent that all
    that can work, I think that's great. At some point, if you're
    dealing with bad actors, the way to win is to win. That you
    make the biggest mistake by hampering the efforts of U.S.
    innovators with all the sort of the side show of all the things
    that can possibly go wrong. Of course, there are going to be
    challenges and harm that are very real.
        People's jobs will be replaced by a certain amount of
    automation. I will point out that has been happening since the
    dawn of time. It doesn't mean we don't need to have real
    attention paid to those circumstances. It's not worth holding
    an entire country back in the kind of technology that will
    benefit every single American and people around the globe
    hopefully from AI products, because we can think of examples of
    someone losing their job. It's a tragic situation for that
    individual, but I would hope that the overall benefit to the
    economy and to society and prosperity of Americans compensates
    in some way for that churn. That churn is real, but we can't
    use those examples as an excuse to hamper an incredibly
    important technology.
        Mr. Cline. At the same time, you have big tech companies
    arguing that scraping copyrighted material for AI falls under
    fair use. This practice could severely undermine artists,
    journalists, and content creators should the U.S. continue to
    enforce its protections to prevent AI developers from profiting
    off stolen intellectual property.
        Ms. Melugin. Intellectual property with the forward
    movement of technology is a bit of a moving target. It's
    certainly an area where Congress can look to revisit and adjust
    as necessary. I don't know if we're there yet, but that those
    are very valid concerns. I'm certainly not here to argue that
    there will be no regulatory or legal reaction to AI. I'm just
    here to argue that it's better to go cautiously forward on a
    case-by-case basis, and their use of intellectual property
    might very well be one of those.
        Mr. Cline. Several lawsuits, including The New York Times
    v. OpenAI argue that AI models unlawfully use copyrighted
    content for training. Given these legal challenges, do you
    think courts will ultimately force AI developers to pay
    licensing fees, and how might that impact competition and
    innovation in the AI industry?
        Ms. Melugin. My personal policy is not to comment on what
    courts might do. It's possible. I do think one of the pressure
    points in AI progress for the U.S. is data sources. I think the
    market is innovating even for those synthetic data. There are
    other solutions, but new data, more data is an important
    balancing act to keep in mind when you're talking about
    limiting access to that for maybe the next companies that come
    along. I think that there's tradeoffs that need to be weighed
    there.
        Mr. Cline. There's a balance.
        Ms. Melugin. There's a balance, as in most intellectual
    property law, I think. Also, I'll quickly make the point that
    with data, it's not always more is better. We're finding that
    out. Up to a certain point, you need a certain amount, and it
    needs to be good and there's engineering progress that can be
    made on top of that data, but it's not the end-all/be-all that
    AI--it's not the only factor that's important for innovation
    and AI.
        Mr. Cline. Thank you.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent request.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, I ask for unanimous consent to
    submit for the record the article by AI Now Institute entitled
    ``US-China AI Race: AI Policies Industrial Policy,'' that shows
    Chinese AI innovation is growing rapidly despite China having
    stronger antitrust enforcement than the United States.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Georgia for five minutes.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        In an article written by Cecilia Kang of The New York Times
    back on last week, she reported that for just over two years,
    technology leaders at the forefront of developing artificial
    intelligence had made an unusual request of lawmakers. They
    wanted Washington to regulate them. The tech executives warned
    lawmakers that generative AI, which can produce texts and
    images that mimic human creations, had the potential to disrupt
    national security, and elections, and could eventually
    eliminate millions of jobs. AI could go quite wrong.
        Sam Altman, the Chief Executive of OpenAI, testified in
    Congress in May 2023; we want to work with the government to
    prevent that from happening. For two years, the tech industry--
    AI creators have been wanting regulation, but now we have a
    group of three lobbyists appear requesting that we not apply
    any regulations. What has changed, Ms. Melugin?
        Ms. Melugin. Just for recordkeeping purposes, I am not a
    lobbyist.
        Mr. Johnson. I know you say that you're not, but your
    funding--
        Ms. Melugin. Well, you have to register to be a lobbyist.
        Mr. Johnson. Your funding comes from the industry that
    you're here representing today but let me move on. The main
    ingredient for artificial intelligence is data, which allows AI
    models to learn. Co-President Musk owns an AI company with its
    Chatbot Grock, and there is always the problem of AI companies
    needing to get a competitive edge to have more data to train
    their models, and Co-President Musk is in a unique position
    now, because he also runs the so-called Department of
    Government Efficiency--DOGE.
        In the past 2\1/2\ months, Musk's DOGE team has gained
    access to vast data bases at agencies like the Internal Revenue
    Service, and the Social Security Administration, which include
    our personal information. Just this past weekend, DOGE gained
    access to the Federal personnel payroll system.
        We know that DOGE has already copied massive amounts of our
    personal data onto its servers and using that amount of data to
    train his AI model would give Co-President Musk a huge edge
    over his competitors.
        Now, the administration will tell us that DOGE is being
    careful with our personal data, but this is the same
    administration whose national security adviser accidentally
    invited a journalist to a group chat on a private unsecured
    messaging app where the Trump team was discussing war plans and
    classified information, and it's the same administration that
    conducted national security business over personal Gmail
    accounts.
        This administration has a culture of playing fast and loose
    with secret and private information. Now, how can we trust Elon
    Musk with our personal data when he and his AI company have so
    much to gain from it financially, Mr. Bedoya?
        Mr. Bedoya. I'd love to give a broader answer, if I may. I
    do think, speaking just for the FTC, I am very worried about
    the information the Commission holds getting in the wrong
    hands. The FTC regularly, as a matter of regular course of
    business, collects market-sensitive information, information
    about competitive strategy, and even top-level information
    about certain shops being active at certain times could, for a
    person, but definitely for an AI, be used to generate extremely
    sensitive inferences about otherwise confidential market
    activity.
        Mr. Johnson. Elon Musk has his hands around that kind of
    information. Commissioner, I talked about the dangers of Co-
    President using his personal data, Co-President Musk using our
    personal data to train his AI models. Do you also see a threat
    to consumers, and what would your concerns be about that?
        Mr. Bedoya. The main thing I think about with the use of
    data obtained from government agencies being used to train a
    model, speaking generally, is let's say a mistake is made and
    data is swallowed up into that model that shouldn't be. Twenty
    years ago, you go into a system and just delete those files,
    but that's not how these models work now. This is like me
    saying to you, Congressman, please unlearn my face. Good luck
    with that. It doesn't make any sense. So, I'm obviously
    oversimplifying a little bit, but it's very difficult to
    unscramble those eggs. I'm worried about competitive
    information getting into these models, and, therefore, getting
    into the wrong hands, even if we realize it after the fact.
    That is definitely a real concern.
        Mr. Johnson. Those wrong hands are not necessarily in
    China. They're right here in DOGE.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chair, I have a UC request
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I request unanimous
    consent to submit a CNBC article entitled, ``Elon Musk who Co-
    Founded Firm Behind ChatGPT Warns AI's One of the Biggest Risks
    to Civilization,'' where Elon Musk states, quote,

            We need to regulate AI safety. It is, I think, actually a
            bigger risk to society than cars or planes or medicine.

        Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection, the Chair of the Full
    Committee, Mr. Jordan, is now recognized for five minutes.
        Chair Jordan. Let me first do unanimous consent in light of
    the previous question.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Chair is recognized.
        Chair Jordan. I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter
    into the record a story from The Hill, ``The FTC must be held
    accountable for its widespread leaks of confidential data.''
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection.
        Chair Jordan. Mr. Chilson, you worked at the FTC. Is that
    right?
        Mr. Chilson. That's right.
        Chair Jordan. Chief Technologist at the FTC, I think, was
    your title.
        Mr. Chilson. Acting Chief Technologist, yes.
        Chair Jordan. You focused on--I'm looking from the bio
    here--the economics in privacy blockchain related issues. Is
    that accurate?
        Mr. Chilson. That's correct.
        Chair Jordan. Worked for the commissioner?
        Mr. Chilson. Yes.
        Chair Jordan. You're an attorney as well?
        Mr. Chilson. I am, yes.
        Chair Jordan. You understand the Bill of Rights, the
    Constitution, all the things they teach us in law school and
    all those important--
        Mr. Chilson. I do.
        Chair Jordan. Is it appropriate for the FTC to ask an
    American company the journalists that they have communicated
    with?
        Mr. Chilson. I don't think so, sir.
        Chair Jordan. I don't think so either, but that's exactly
    what happened at the FTC, Mr. Bedoya works at just a couple of
    years ago. They sent a letter to Twitter after Mr. Musk had
    purchased the business and said it's recently reported that
    Twitter has been providing certain third-party journalist
    information, and they named the journalists: Bari Weiss, Matt
    Tabbi, Michael Shellen-
    berger, and Abigal Shrier. They named the journalists, and then
    they say this:

            Identify all journalists and other members of the media to whom
            you've granted any type of access to the companies of
            communication.

    Is that appropriate?
        Mr. Chilson. I don't see what this would have to do with
    most of the types of action the FTC would bring.
        Chair Jordan. It seems to me this is totally getting at
    violating the first amendment and freedom of the press. You've
    got a right as a company--people in a company to talk to
    journalists. Yet, the FTC wants to know any and every
    journalist you've communicated, named four specifically and
    wants to know any others you've talked to. What do you think,
    Mr. Chilson? Pretty bad stuff that was going on there?
        Mr. Chilson. Yep.
        Chair Jordan. Let me ask you this, then, too. They also
    asked--they wanted to know every reason why Twitter terminated
    former Twitter employee Jim Baker. Do you know anything about
    that, Mr. Chilson, why they would be asking about that guy?
        Mr. Chilson. I don't know much about that, and I don't know
    why they would--
        Chair Jordan. Well, I got my hunches. Jim Baker was the
    General Counsel at the FBI when the FBI was doing all the crazy
    things, going to the FISA Court, getting warrants, spying on
    the Presidential campaigns. He then goes to work for Twitter.
    Mr. Musk buys Twitter and says I'm going to get rid of this
    guy, and now the FTC wants to know why. I find that strange
    too. Every journalist you've talked to and asked why you got
    rid of Jim Baker.
        Let me ask you another one. Ernst and Young was named the
    assessor in the consent decree focused between the FTC and
    Twitter. The assessor, the specific assessor, was a guy, David
    Roke. He testified under oath and said, quote,

            If Ernst and Young did not include negative findings against
            Twitter, the FTC raised the specter that it would create other
            challenges for Ernst and Young over time.

    Does that seem to be the kind of communication that should be
    going from the FTC to the assessor at Ernst and Young, Mr.
    Chilson?
        Mr. Chilson. Seems like a form of soft coercion.
        Chair Jordan. Is that accurate, Mr. Bedoya? Did you guys do
    that? Mr. Roke, again, this is under oath in the case, is that
    what happened at the FTC? Why would you tell Ernst and Young
    you better find out the right thing, you better find something
    negative against Twitter or you may not get business with us
    over time.
        Mr. Bedoya. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question. I'm not
    familiar with that particular communication, and so given that
    I am under oath, I don't want to give a wrong answer here.
        Chair Jordan. Are you disputing whether it happened or not?
    It's a court filing.
        Mr. Bedoya. No, sir, I'm not disputing that. I'm just
    saying I'm not familiar with that particular communication, and
    like you said, I'm under oath.
        Chair Jordan. I'm asking you if it's appropriate or not. It
    happened. Here's what he said:

            If Ernst and Young did not include negative findings against
            Twitter, the FTC raised the specter that it would create other
            challenges for Ernst and Young over time.

    You hire Ernst and Young to be assessors in these kinds of
    consent decree arrangements all the time. You can see the
    obvious threat there. I'm just asking if that's appropriate.
        Mr. Bedoya. Mr. Chair, who is saying that statement? Who is
    writing it?
        Chair Jordan. They have the documents that David Roke
    communicated in the court that we have.
        Mr. Bedoya. Forgive me, Mr. Roke is an Ernst and Young
    Executive?
        Chair Jordan. Yes. He's the assessor you guys hired.
        Mr. Bedoya. He was--I'm sorry, I take this very seriously,
    and so what I would ask is if you submit it for the record,
    I'll take a good look at it and give you a full and complete
    answer, but I'm not familiar with the context of the statement.
        Chair Jordan. Why did you have to know about Jim Baker, why
    he was terminated? Companies are allowed to fire people.
        Mr. Bedoya. Mr. Chair, I did not sign those CIDs, I did not
    sign the subpoenas, and so I don't know the exact circumstances
    surrounding that individual.
        Chair Jordan. OK. OK. No comment there. All right.
        Mr. Coniglio, Mr. Bedoya raised three concerns earlier, and
    I just have a few seconds. Any of you three can comment on
    this. Three warnings that he pointed out. Vertical integration,
    AI keeping private data private, and then the surveillance
    concern. Do you have a different perspective on those three
    concerns? Or tell me what your thoughts on the three warnings
    he laid out in his testimony?
        Mr. Coniglio. Thank you for the question. I can start with
    the first one about AI partnerships and vertical integration
    and any competitive conduct. I think that the concerns about
    foreclosure, which are the typical anticompetitive harm that
    you think about when you go to vertical integration are
    certainly very premature at this stage. We see robust
    competition at the foundation model level and the cloud level,
    which suggests that a vertical integration between, let's say,
    a cloud company and a foundation model is unlikely to result in
    any sort of exclusionary conduct.
        With respect to the partnerships and the horizontal, so to
    speak, reduction of competition between let's say a big tech
    firm that may have a partnership and the idea of being that
    because they are investing in these companies, they're less
    likely to compete, again, it's unlikely that's going to result
    in a substantial lessening of competition. Again, because of
    the robust competition that exists at the foundation model
    level, but also because of the procompetitive benefits that
    these partnerships can have, specifically providing internet--
    excuse me, AI foundation model startups with the sort of
    patient capital they need to grow sustainably and actually
    innovate faster.
        Chair Jordan. OK. I know I'm out of time, but can you talk
    about the privacy issue really quick, too? Anyone of you want
    to talk on privacy? I have concerns about this whole facial
    recognition stuff and some of the examples that Mr. Bedoya gave
    in his testimony, so give me your quick thoughts on that, and
    then I'll be happy to yield back, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Chilson. In many ways, the privacy issue and artificial
    intelligence, especially these deep learning models, is much
    more complicated than it is in the form of social media, and
    so, when you train these models, what you get is something that
    does not have any of the actual training data in it. You can
    never look into a model and see the specific training that was
    in there.
        The privacy implications here are once more on the
    inference side and not about actual data being in these, and so
    it's much more like remembering that something happened, but
    not remembering it precisely, and therefore, I think--
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Gentleman's--
        Mr. Chilson. Sorry. I think the privacy concerns are less.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Gentleman's time has expired.
        Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Gentleman yields back. Ask unanimous
    consent to enter into the record the letter from Gary Shapiro
    and Kinsey Fabrizio of CTA dated April 2, 2025. Also, the
    statement of Jennifer Huddleston from Cato dated April 2, 2025,
    and the letter from Graham Dufault of the App Association dated
    April 2, 2025. Without objection.
        Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Gentleman from Illinois has a UC request.
        Mr. Garcia. Yes. Thank you. Chair, I request unanimous
    consent to add to the record a Tech Policy Press article
    entitled, ``DOGE Plan to Push AI Across the U.S. Federal
    Government is Wildly Dangerous. ``
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Without objection.
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The Ranking Member of the Full Committee is
    now recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair, and thanks to our
    witnesses today.
        It's hard to think of an antitrust matter more pressing
    than concentration in the AI market. The dominance of a handful
    of AI companies presents a long-term problem for our national
    security, our democracy, our privacy, and basic fairness in the
    marketplace. President Trump has plunged our government into
    chaos and disabled the Federal agencies that we depend on to
    address such problems. It will be difficult to effectively
    respond to dangerous market concentration in the assembly of
    all human knowledge if we have governmental power that is
    dangerously concentrated itself in the President to the
    exclusion of Congress as the law-making branch and the
    Judiciary as the protector of constitutional rights and values.
        Over a century ago, Congress established the Federal Trade
    Commission. It was created as an independent agency to enforce
    antitrust and consumer protection laws outside of the
    controlling pressure and power agendas of any single President
    or party. For more than a century, the FTC has protected
    Americans against scams, fraud, and other unfair and deceptive
    practices. It also promoted and protected competition in the
    marketplace, which benefits consumers, workers, small
    businesses driving innovation, and business without monopoly.
        Congress designed the FTC to be led by five commissioners
    across party lines who served seven-year terms are subject to
    Senate confirmation and can only be fired for cause. Congress
    structured this independence to ensure that the FTC would serve
    the nonpartisan interest of the American people and be
    insulated from partisan political control.
        Over 90 years ago, the independence of these commissioners
    was tested and the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that
    the President cannot unilaterally fire an independent FTC
    commissioner without cause. Unitary Executive power violated
    the careful Federal design and infringed Congress's lawmaking
    power to establish the FTC as an effective and balanced
    instrument for the public good. Yet, President Trump chose to
    violate Federal law and defy the Court's longstanding precedent
    by attempting to fire without cause the two Democratic members
    of the FTC. He did so to end the nonpartisan independence of
    the FTC, and to make sure it responds to his momentary
    political demands above the national public interest as
    contemplated by Congress.
        Accordingly, the commissioners have brought suit to reverse
    their unlawful firing, and two, as Commissioner Slaughter
    stated,

            Make sure that the work of the Commission is done without fear
            or favor and more specifically that we can take on the biggest
            companies in America without fear of getting fired for failure
            to do a favor to the President's friends who are donors or
            corporate allies.

        The strongest Federal rules on AI were established by
    President Biden in a 2023 EO. The Trump Administration reversed
    that Executive Order, which laid down the guardrails for the AI
    industry. Not content with this rollback, the President has now
    hobbled and undermined the lead cop on the AI beat, the FTC,
    which has for years been at the forefront of holding big tech,
    including AI, to account.
        It's hard to debate the proper scope of regulation in this
    political space when Donald Trump has reportedly granted Elon
    Musk unlimited access to our most private and sensitive
    records, data that's undoubtedly invaluable to X AI and his AI
    company. Today, none of us here know whether Musk is using our
    data, classified information, and other sensitive data from
    data bases across government to train his company's AI models
    in gaining an unfair advantage over competitors and against
    citizens. Musk has refused to answer many requests on this
    topic, and now he's crippled the agency charged with
    investigating these very tech abuses.
        Even if we came together and found agreement on regulatory
    reforms and safeguards for AI development, we still now lack an
    expert independent agency to enforce our decisions. The
    President and Musk are ushering a new regime in which
    monarchical power, cronyism, corruption, and sycophancy rule.
        He's using his office to enrich himself, his friends, and
    his donors at the expense of the people. The attempted firing
    of two FTC commissioners and his subsequent removal of any FTC
    resource that might serve as a check on big tech illustrate how
    the President is dismantling the machinery of government to
    serve his own end.
        Our Constitutional order is under attack to concentrate all
    political power in the President. It's the political equivalent
    of what we're trying to prevent in the economic sphere. I hope
    that our witnesses can give us their best insight as to how to
    deal with this problem, but we're facing a structural crisis
    now in our government.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Gentleman yields back.
        Chair Jordan. Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. The Chair is recognized for a UC request.
        Mr. Jordan. I'd ask unanimous consent to enter into the
    record the letter from August 26th of last year sent by one of
    those oligarchs that the Ranking Member just put up there, Mr.
    Zuckerberg, the letter he sent to the Committee saying that
    they, in fact, censored Americans at the request of the Biden
    Administration. I yield back.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. We thank the witnesses for appearing before
    the Committee today. Without objection, all Members will have
    five legislative days to submit additional written questions
    for the witnesses or additional materials for the record.
    Without objection, this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

        All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
    Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform,
    and Antitrust can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/
    Committee/
    Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=118081.

                                     [all]