The House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade spent its latest markup hearing on Thursday proving that if there’s one bipartisan passion left in Washington, it’s moral panic about the internet.

Eighteen separate bills on “kids’ online safety” were debated, amended, and then promptly advanced to the full committee. Not one was stopped.

Ranking Member Jan Schakowsky (D) set the tone early, describing the bills as “terribly inadequate” and announcing she was “furious.”

She complained that the package “leaves out the big issues that we are fighting for.” If it’s not clear, Schakowsky is complaining that the already-controversial bills don’t go far enough.

Eighteen bills now move forward, eight of which hinge on some form of age verification, which would likely require showing a government ID. Three: App Store Accountability (H.R. 3149), the SCREEN Act (H.R. 1623), and the Parents Over Platforms Act (H.R. 6333), would require it outright.

The other five rely on what lawmakers call the “actual knowledge” or “willful disregard” standards, which sound like legalese but function as a dare to platforms: either know everyone’s age, or risk a lawsuit.

The safest corporate response, of course, would be to treat everyone as a child until they’ve shown ID.

Rep. Frank Pallone (D) was pleased that the Safer GAMING Act (H.R. 6265) has become bipartisan.

The bill targets online video games and would give the FTC authority to investigate or sue companies that “act in willful disregard” of a user’s age.

Pallone also raised concerns that KOSA and COPPA 2.0, not because of the surveillance and censorship concerns but because they could “forever close the door on greater state protection for kids,” pointing out that they could override even stronger state laws.

Even while praising some of the bills, Pallone offered the bare minimum of concern about “bills that mandate third-party access to children’s data or require an adult or kid to provide additional sensitive data like a government ID or biometrics before they can access content, send a message, or download an app.”

Rep. Yvette Clarke (D) dismissed the whole bundle as “purely lip service and the weakest attempts at keeping people safe online.”

Rep. Darren Soto (D), meanwhile, cited Florida’s own social media law as a model, praising its ban on anyone under 14 and parental consent rules for those under 16. That law is currently under heavy legal scrutiny.

Rep. Neal Dunn (R) promoted the Safe Messaging for Kids Act with a bit of old-fashioned frontier imagery, saying his bill “puts an end to this Wild West sort of situation.”

The bill’s focus is on “disappearing messages,” which Dunn thinks predators depend on. In reality, the legislation would likely mean platforms keeping more records for longer.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (D) started like a man eager to show his listening credentials. “To the parents who have shared their stories, we heard you, and we will continue to hear you, and these changes were a direct result of your testimony to us,” he said.

That declaration came after Republicans reworked bill language, driven more by emotion than logic, following what they described as a week of heartfelt talks with parents.

The result is a package stripped of one of its more contested parts, the so-called “duty of care” requirement that forced platforms to “exercise reasonable care” to prevent harm to minors.

In its place, the new text simply asks companies to “establish and enforce reasonable policies.”

Democrats immediately objected, arguing that the weaker standard effectively legalizes corporate shrugs.

Their frustration grew sharper over the inclusion of language preempting state laws. For Democrats, this meant years of local experimentation in online safety could be erased by a one-size-fits-all federal fix.

That same issue has already shadowed the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act, which would expand COPPA to cover teenagers under 17.

The state-versus-federal tension has become one of the defining battles in digital regulation, a clash between lawmakers who want to lead and those who want to control the leaders.

Sen. Ed Markey, the Senate sponsor of COPPA 2.0, released a statement condemning the House version’s retreat.

“Today’s partisan vote on COPPA 2.0 is further evidence that House Republicans have unnecessarily set back a multi-year, bipartisan process to protect children and teens online,” he said, calling the House edits a “weakening of COPPA 2.0 on behalf of Big Tech.”

He urged Republicans to “return to the strong, bipartisan language in the Senate bill.”

Rep. Kathy Castor (D) tried to keep the tone conciliatory. “I didn’t come in with my hair on fire today,” she said, before explaining that she wanted to restore the “strong, bipartisan version” that previously cleared the committee.

Her call for “intestinal fortitude” to protect families was meant to rally cooperation, but it mostly highlighted how far the process has drifted from unity.

Outside the committee room, Joann Bogard of ParentsSOS, whose son Mason died after reportedly participating in a online “choking challenge,” issued a warning of her own.

She thanked lawmakers for listening but said, “If the House version of KOSA is not significantly strengthened, we will have no choice but to oppose it.”

Parent groups like hers have become a driving force behind the legislative rush, their moral authority often serving as both shield and sword for policymakers eager to be seen as responsive.

Bogard’s remarks also pointed to the broader political logic at work. The more Big Tech resists, the stronger the call for something resembling Australia’s new approach, which simply bans kids under sixteen from major platforms.

That model, now in testing, has become the new fantasy of frustrated lawmakers who prefer a clean prohibition.

As the subcommittee sent its full slate of bills forward, it did so under a familiar political spell, the conviction that a louder promise to “protect kids” can drown out every unresolved contradiction.

Instead of fearing government surveillance, they’re demanding it, pushing for legislation that would make more data collection inevitable.

Now that all 18 bills have advanced, the full House Energy & Commerce Committee will take its turn to edit, approve, or reject them.

If approved, the next stage would be the committee report and eventual consideration on the House floor. The odds of at least some of these bills becoming law are rising, mostly because, free speech and privacy be damned, no one in Washington wants to be seen voting against “protecting kids.”

The post House Lawmakers Unite in Moral Panic, Advancing 18 “Kids’ Online Safety” Bills That Expand Surveillance and Weaken Privacy appeared first on Reclaim The Net.