Sponsored by
Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE]
ID: C001088
Follow the money
The bill
SRES. 490, 119th Congress — read as touching AI & Cloud Infrastructure.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
22 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 248-250 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another brilliant example of congressional grandstanding, wrapped in a veneer of patriotism and techno-jargon. Let's dissect this farce.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This resolution is a masterclass in stating the obvious while accomplishing nothing concrete. Its primary objective is to affirm the importance of preserving America's lead in artificial intelligence (AI) because... well, who wouldn't want that? It's like resolving to support motherhood and apple pie. The real purpose is to provide a platform for politicians to posture about national security, economic prosperity, and global leadership.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** None. This resolution doesn't propose any actual legislation or changes to existing law. It's a feel-good exercise in rhetoric, commending the White House AI Action Plan (which is likely a similarly vacuous document) and applauding efforts to deny China access to advanced chips. The "provisions" are merely a series of non-binding affirmations and declarations.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: politicians seeking to burnish their national security credentials, tech companies looking for government handouts or favorable treatment, and voters who will be convinced that this resolution is somehow meaningful. China, the supposed adversary, will likely respond with its own PR campaign, further fueling the cycle of nationalist posturing.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** Zero. This resolution won't change the trajectory of AI development in the United States or anywhere else. It's a Potemkin village of policy-making, designed to create the illusion of action without actually doing anything. The real decisions about AI research and development will continue to be made by corporations, researchers, and other stakeholders, not by Congress.
In short, this resolution is a classic case of "legislative theater," where politicians pretend to address a pressing issue while accomplishing nothing of substance. It's a waste of time, energy, and taxpayer dollars. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch this farce unfold.
Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 43 nodes and 22 connections (55 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $71,000
Showing top 16 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 4 helped.
Resolution (8) calls for prioritizing investments in energy, telecommunications, and physical infrastructure necessary to enable widespread adoption of AI technology, which directly benefits AI and cloud infrastructure providers.
Resolution (3) and (6) affirm and call for continuation of U.S. Government efforts to deny China access to advanced chips and chipmaking equipment, and to ensure U.S. companies maintain priority access to cutting-edge AI chips, benefiting domestic semiconductor manufacturers.
Resolution (8) emphasizes prioritizing investments in telecommunications infrastructure necessary for AI adoption, which benefits telecom companies.
Resolution (8) calls for prioritizing investments in energy infrastructure necessary to enable widespread AI adoption, benefiting energy infrastructure firms.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 216 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Stiffer penalties and mandatory investigations when intelligence leaks are aimed at domestic political targets, l Tighter controls on otherwise lawful intercepts that also collect the communications of domestic political figures, l An express prohibition on politically motivated use of intelligence authorities, and l Reforms to improve the accountability of the Justice Department and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. To keep intelligence credentials from being used for partisan purposes, former high-ranking intelligence officials who retain a clearance should remain subject to the Hatch Act after they leave government to deter them from tying their political stands or activism to their continuing privilege of access to classified government information. The IC should be prohibited from monitoring so-called domestic disinformation. Such activity can easily slip into suppression of an opposition party’s speech, is corrosive of First Amendment protections, and raises questions about impartiality when the IC chooses not to act. CHINA-FOCUSED CHANGES, REFORMS, AND RESOURCES The term “whole of government” is all too frequently overused, but in responding to the generational threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party, that is exactly the approach that our national security apparatus should adopt. CIA Director William Burns has formally established a China Mission Center focused on these efforts, but it can be successful only if it is given the necessary personnel, cross-community collaboration, and resources. That is uncertain at this point, and just how seriously the organization is taking the staffing of the center is unclear. A critical strategic question for an incoming Administration and IC lead- ers will be: How, when, and with whom do we share our classified intelligence? Understanding when to pass things to liaisons and for what purpose will be vital to outmaneuvering China in the intelligence sphere. Questions for a President will include: l What is our overarching conception of the adversarial relationship and competition? l How does intelligence-sharing fit into that conception? — 217 — Intelligence Community Some Members of Congress have said that intelligence relationships such as the Five Eyes28 should be expanded to include other allies in the Asia–Pacific in, for example, a “Nine Eyes” framework. This fails to take into account the fact that any blanket expansion would necessarily involve protecting the sources and methods of a larger and quite possibly more diverse group of member countries that might or might not have congruent interests. That being said, however, a future conservative President should consider what resources and information-sharing relationships could be included in an ad hoc or quasi-formal intelligence expansion (for example, with the Quad) among nations trying to counter the threat from China. Significant technology, language skills, and financial intelligence resources are needed to counter China’s capabilities.29 The IC was caught flat-footed by the recent discovery of China’s successful test of a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile. No longer can America’s information and technological dominance be assumed. China’s gains and intense focus on emerging technologies have taken it in some areas from being a near-peer competitor to probably being ahead of the United States. China’s centralized government allocates endless resources (sometimes inefficiently) to its strategic “Made in China 2025” and military apparatuses, which combine government, military, and private-sector activities on quantum infor- mation sciences and technologies, artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, biotechnologies, and advanced robotics. The IC must do more than understand these advancements: It must rally non- government and allied partners and inspire unified action to counter them. In addition, to combat China’s economic espionage, authorities and loopholes in the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)30 will have to be examined and addressed in conjunction with the Attorney General. Many issues within the broader government can be tied back to a more general congressional understanding of the threat due to the compartmentalization of committee jurisdictions and the responsibilities of executive agencies to brief on the nature of the threat. Broader committee jurisdictions should receive additional intelligence from IC agencies as necessary to inform China’s unique and more com- prehensive threat across layers of the U.S. government bureaucracy and economy. Former DNI John Ratcliffe increased the intelligence budget as it related to China by 20 percent. “When people ask me why I did that,” he explained in an interview, “I say, ‘Because no one would let me increase it by 40%.’ I had an $85 billion combined annual budget for both the national intelligence program and military intelligence program. My perspective was, ‘Whatever we’re spending on countering China, it isn’t enough.’”31 From an intelligence standpoint, the need to understand Chinese motivations, capabilities, and intent will be of paramount importance to a future conservative President. It is therefore also of paramount importance that the “whole of government” be rowing together.
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.