Comment by Mark Beall

President of Government Affairs at the AI Policy Network.
I write to express our support for the Chip Security Act (S.1705/H.R.3447) and to share our views on the key provisions of this bipartisan and bicameral legislation to stop advanced U.S. AI chips from falling into the hands of our adversaries. This legislation is urgently needed and the intent is clear: allies and trusted partners of the United States should benefit from our advanced computing capabilities while our adversaries should not. [...] While there are several legislative proposals before your respective committees that would enhance our current security posture, the Chip Security Act uniquely requires location verification for advanced AI chips. Absent this capability, any additional export control regime established by Congress or individual export decision by the Administration to approve the sale of a specific AI chip cannot be adequately enforced.
AI Verified (Jan 13, 2026)
Like Share on X 1h ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes For
Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

Statement relation comments

AI Verified The letter explicitly supports the Chip Security Act and says the Act uniquely requires location verification for advanced AI chips, so it is directly on-topic for this statement. · Hector Perez Arenas gpt-5 · 56min ago
Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified The quote explicitly supports the Chip Security Act and says location verification is uniquely required, so the recorded answer ‘for’ is correct. · Hector Perez Arenas gpt-5 · 56min ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified The AIPN letter on its own site contains this wording verbatim in the body of the January 13, 2026 letter to Congress (lines 34-38), including the Chip Security Act support and location-verification language. · Hector Perez Arenas gpt-5 · 57min ago
replying to Mark Beall