Members Of Congress Agree Process Is Rushed, Anti-Tech Bills Not Ready
Last week’s marathon House Judiciary markup made one thing clear: the six anti-tech bills that squeaked through committee aren’t anywhere close to ready.
The warnings about the rushed process and need for legislative hearings on bills that could have far-reaching consequences on American interests and innovation are bipartisan:
Majority Leader Steve Hoyer (D-MD) agreed antitrust bills are not ready for House Floor vote without more discussion. “There was disagreement among the Democrats in the committee and not every Democrat voted for it, and some very senior members opposed it. There’s a lot of discussion to be had before I get to scheduling bills for the floor.”
The New Democrat Coalition leadership called for issues of this complexity to be given “the appropriate time and consideration.” “[T]hese are complex issues with far reaching implications. The complexity of this topic is highlighted by major ongoing antitrust litigation that could substantively impact the approach Congress should take on these topics. Legislation on topics as multifaceted and important as this one should be given the appropriate time and consideration.”
A group of six bipartisan members said the bills are “not close to ready for Floor consideration” and fall short of serving Americans’ interests. “The marathon markup – that started Wednesday morning, recessed as the sun came up on Thursday morning, and then reconvened for another four hours on Thursday—featured several bills that would radically change America’s leading tech companies and made crystal clear that the bill text as debated is not close to ready for Floor consideration.”
— “Unfortunately, the resulting legislative proposals – which the full Committee did not hold a hearing on or have reasonable time to fully consider – fell short of adequately addressing identified problems in an effective way that serves Americans’ interests.”
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) noted that committee members “have not heard from a single expert witness … to understand how this recently-introduced bill text would actually operate in real life.” “The proposed legislation has enormous consequences and Judicial Committee members who are not on the subcommittee have not heard from a single expert witness, software engineer, or third party seller to understand how this recently-introduced bill text would actually operate in real life.”
— Regarding the State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act, Rep. Lieu said: “I’m simply going to have to learn more about it. This bill was kind of put in at the last minute, and it just seems to me that without a lot of notice, there’s not a lot for me to go on.”
Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC) criticized the six antitrust bills as “a disaster of not being ready for prime time.” “Rule 65 also requires the showing of a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, not a plausible claim that a covered platform operator took an action that could violate this act. That is extraordinary and it is—unfortunately it typifies these bills. They are a disaster of not being ready for prime time. This is a goat rodeo and it just goes on and on.”
— Rep. Bishop criticized the ACCESS Act as an “egregious” “half-baked draft” with errors. “Interoperability and portability and all the things should be evaluated by the Committee. It doesn’t say we ought to jump into a markup on some half-baked draft that until days ago, by the way, had errors in references to sections of the bills. It is egregious.”
Rep. Bishop also emphasized that the bills don’t have “nearly enough definition of policy.” “When you dig into the detail of these bills, every one of them gives serious cause for concern and not nearly enough definition of policy to be confident that administrative agencies will do something that’s helpful to American—the American people, appropriately remediates big tech, and doesn’t cause great and new harms or make the regulatory state that much more powerful without serving the American people.”
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) told Financial Times: “I don’t think they spent a lot of time drafting these bills, some of the measures in them are embarrassing.”
— “I am in favor of making adjustments to antitrust laws, but some of these are radical.”
Rep. Michelle Fischbah (R-FL) said that it is “very obvious” that policymakers need more time to study these bills. “I think it is very, very obvious we need more time on these bills. And we owe it to the people we all represent that we do this right and that we take our time. And it is important. It is important that we get all of the input we should.”
Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) agreed “further debate” is needed. “I think that the gentleman from North Carolina has said it; I think the ranking member has said it, and others, about the need for legislative hearings and further debate on this important matter.”
— Regarding the ACCESS Act, Rep. Roy said: “[W]hat I would hope the chairman does at the end of this is we shelve it and we have a legislative hearing, and we call people in, and we debate it and we come back and we address this later.”
Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) underscored bipartisan concerns about the rushed process. “A lot has been said today and we have a lot longer to go. But, on the general idea that this is a rush to the full committee, I just want to point out it’s not just members here in the room, and not just conservatives, that are concerned about this.”
Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI) reiterated that there is “not enough information” on the bills. “I don’t know if I can vote on this because I just don’t have enough information. And I think there’s quite a few people that are sitting both on this committee and in this legislative body that they’re not prepared to be able to vote on this.”
Regarding the State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) emphasized the need to work with the Judicial Conference before rushing to mend the system. “I would just close by saying if you want to mend the system, let’s work with the Judicial Conference to find ways to increase the efficiency, not end it in hopes that 50 cases will be more efficient than one.”
Rep. Lou Correa (D-CA) emphasized that it’s “irresponsible” to vote on the State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act “whose implications” aren’t fully understood. “For us today to vote on legislation whose implications may not be totally comprehended is, I think, irresponsible. That’s why I’ll be voting no on this legislation.”
Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA) made it clear more work is needed before a floor vote. “[I] want to be clear that I believe that more work will need to be done between passage later tonight and the consideration of these bills on the floor of the House of Representatives.”