Bipartisan Majority Of Senate Judiciary Committee Express Deep Concerns With Sen. Klobuchar’s Anti-Tech Bill
Fourteen of the 22 Senators on the Judiciary Committee said they would not vote for Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s American Innovation and Choice Online Act on the Senate floor as drafted, or expressed deep concerns about the bill.
1. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) 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.”
2. 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.”
3. 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.”
4. 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.”
5. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) expected “significant changes” before considering the bill on the floor: “I’m not sure what my final vote will be today, but I do think part of the outcome of referencing is an issue that needs to be addressed. 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.”
6. Ranking member Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) opposed the bill, noting that it has not received the scrutiny that 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.”
7. 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 opposed the bill, questioning its 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?”
8. 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.”
9. 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”
10. 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.”
11. 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.”
12. 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.”
13. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) opposed the bill.
14. Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) offered an amendment to better protect privacy and security, but the amendment was defeated. “Striking the appropriate balance between privacy and cybersecurity in this legislation is important. And what I want to offer is a second-degree amendment, Senator Lee, to yours that we toughen the standard slightly that these tech companies have to meet in order to invoke this affirmative defense where privacy or security functionality is concerned.”