Bipartisan, Bicameral Lawmakers Agree: Anti-Tech Bills Not Ready For Prime Time
Bipartisan and bicameral Members of Congress agree that they are not ready to vote on anti-tech bills, which were rushed out of the Judiciary committees of both chambers without full-committee legislative hearings.
Here’s what 13 senators and more than 20 representatives had to say:
Thirteen members of the Senate Judiciary Committee said they would not vote for Sen. Klobuchar’s anti-tech bill on the Senate floor as drafted
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) opposed Sen. Klobuchar’s bill and raised a host of concerns. “I will oppose this bill today. I strongly believe it would have been helpful for this bill to receive the benefit of a full committee hearing before we voted on it, in order to discuss these concerns and hope that might still be the case.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) was “struck by the bipartisan nature” of concerns over the bill. “I am struck by the bipartisan nature of the questions and concerns that have been raised here today. I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that this bill has never had a full committee hearing. A number of us on a bipartisan basis asked the Chairman for a full committee hearing so we can better understand what both the intended and unintended consequences of this legislation are.”
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) emphasized the need to address “open questions” that many senators have expressed about the bill. “I am going to support this bill in markup here today this committee but I expect the bill sponsors will continue to work to address some of these open questions that I, and many others, have expressed about the bill, so that we might be able to further amend it, and ultimately support it in its passage on the floor.”
— Sen. Coons continued: “I have remaining concerns about privacy and security, about our global competitiveness.”
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) was not “comfortable” supporting the bill on the Senate floor as drafted. “I want to make it clear that there are some important issues and ramifications I’d like to see addressed before I would be comfortable supporting the bill on the floor.”
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) expected “significant changes” before considering the bill on the floor: “And certainly, I’ll look for some significant changes in addressing the issues I’ve outlined this morning to be addressed before I would consider supporting this measure on the floor of the Senate.”
Ranking member Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) opposed the bill, noting that it has not received the scrutiny it needs. “I believe strongly that we’ve got to first do no harm and in order to determine that we are doing no harm we must understand the legislation. This thing has not received the airing that it needs.”
— Sen. Lee emphasized that the bill should not be passed out of the committee. “I’d love to get to yes. And I’ve been trying to figure out ways that I can do that. But I’m not there yet. We’re not there yet. This bill isn’t there yet. And I respectfully don’t believe that we shouldn’t be passing this bill out of committee. Let me explain what I mean. I’ve got some serious concerns with the legislation as it’s now written as well-intentioned as it might be.”
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) opposed the bill, noting it “overreaches” and “needs further refinement.” “I have concerns with this specific bill as it currently is as it’s currently drafted. I believe the bill overreaches, and it needs further refinement before it’s considered by the full Senate.”
— Sen. Tillis continued, questioning the bill’s clarity. “The bill needs more clarity. As a business person, I have questions about who is covered by the law, what it permits, and what is going to happen in terms of enforcement. Under the bill, preferencing is now illegal, do we even know what that means?”
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) opposed the bill, noting it “could require data sharing” with bad actors. “I have concerns with provisions in the bill that could require data sharing between American companies and bad actors under the control of the Chinese Communist Party. I don’t think that’s the intent of the bill or the drafters based on our conversation but I do think we can improve that language to make it safer for our companies and citizens.”
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) opposed the bill. “[H]aving broad conversations in a hearing today, in a markup today, about self-preferencing or about privacy, or about monopolistic behavior does not replace the need for a more fulsome hearing on this legislation.”
— Sen. Blackburn continued: “I do hope that we have the ability to continue to work on this before this legislation would move forward on the floor”
Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) said the bill must “change dramatically” to pass. “I am a co-sponsor of the bill. But this bill is going to change, change dramatically. Hopefully for the better. I expect to be in that room when these changes are made. Or else, I will be off this bill faster than you can say big tech.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said his vote on the floor will depend on amendments. “[W]hether or not his bill gets my support on the floor will depend on how we work together to incorporate these amendments.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) emphasized the need to consider the many amendments from other senators before it could pass a floor vote. “We already have 82 amendments from Tillis that need to be considered after this bill gets out of committee, two or three from Blackburn, three from Cruz, and I don’t know how many from Lee. This bill will never get 60 votes if we don’t. We got to consider these things, so can we just move this bill now? We’re going to have to have a lot of work anyway, and to follow also Kennedy’s suggestion.”
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) opposed the bill.
More than 20 House lawmakers warned the six anti-tech bills rushed through the House Judiciary Committee are not ready for prime time.
Majority Leader Steny 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.”
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 House 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” in order 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.”
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.”
— She added: “I am in favor of making adjustments to antitrust laws, but some of these are radical.”
Rep. Michelle Fischbach (R-MN) 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 on the six bills. “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.”
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.”
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.”