Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Committee Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representative Rivas faults majority over amendment process during AI markup; leaders push back
Summary
Representative Miss Rivas said the majority discouraged her from offering amendments during the AI markup and threatened to pull a data-center bill if she did; committee leaders responded that amendments are permitted but not guaranteed and pledged continued staff cooperation. The exchange highlighted tensions over procedure and a contested deletion of community-college language from the NSF AI education bill.
Representative Miss Rivas used her time during the HR 9341 discussion to sharply criticize how the majority handled amendments at the committee’s AI markup, saying she had been dissuaded from offering two amendments — one on multilingual AI literacy materials and one on data-center water use — and that she was warned the data-center bill would be pulled if she offered the water proposal.
"I'm disappointed and frankly concerned at the majority's approach to the amendment process... the majority threatened to pull the data cent's bill if I even offered my amendment on water use," Miss Rivas said, and announced she would not offer the amendments that she said were intended to improve AI literacy and better measure data-center impacts.
Committee Chair Chairman Babin replied that members are allowed to offer amendments and that the committee encourages robust debate, but he also noted that ‘‘it should never be assumed that by offering an amendment, this idea will be automatically considered or adopted.’’ He committed to staff-level engagement with member offices to work through proposals.
Other members echoed both sides: some expressed sympathy for Miss Rivas’s desire for an open process, while others emphasized the lengthy bipartisan work that produced the package and said staff had been working closely with member offices. Ranking Member Miss Loftton and other Democrats later requested recorded votes on several items and raised concerns about the removal of community-college language from the NSF AI Education Act, saying they intended to continue discussions off the floor.
Why it matters: The exchange illustrated procedural friction at a high-profile markup of AI legislation. While the package ultimately moved forward with many bipartisan votes and several amendments adopted, disagreements about which provisions remained and who could offer amendments will likely shape follow-up negotiations as the bills proceed to the House floor.
Next steps: Leadership said they would continue staff-level negotiations on contested issues — including funding levels for the newly authorized NIST center (Casey) and the community-college provisions in the NSF education bill — and members were given two calendar days to submit supplemental views.
