Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7521, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.

I agree with my colleagues that we must do more to protect personal information online, safeguard national security from foreign adversaries, and protect our electoral system from foreign interference, but this bill is far from the comprehensive approach our increasingly connected world needs. I also have serious concerns with the scope of the legislation and open constitutional questions about the path forward for its implementation.

Targeting only one foreign adversary-controlled application will not fully protect consumers' data in our nation. Energy & Commerce Committee Chairwoman McMorris Rodgers and Ranking Member Pallone have already advanced bipartisan, comprehensive data privacy legislation, and the Biden Administration has issued an Executive Order to Protect Americans' Sensitive Personal Data. Instead of addressing one company, as the bill we are considering today does, we could instead consider that bill or a related proposal that would improve how Americans access and control their data across all apps. The limited data safeguards in the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act are not sufficient to justify what could amount to a ban on TikTok in our country.

Civil liberties and legal experts have also raised concerns about potential constitutional questions regarding this bill. During his term former President Donald Trump issued several Executive Orders that would have had many of the same effects of this bill, but courts struck down those orders. Additionally, the state of Montana's legislation to ban TikTok and similarly prevent it from accessing application stores was recently put on hold for exceeding the authority of the state and potentially violating the First Amendment. I am also concerned that this bill limits legal challenges to just the first 165 days after the legislation is enacted and restricts challenges to actions taken under its authority to within 90 days of their implementation. These restrictions and ongoing constitutional questions about limiting consumer choice and speech could create significant uncertainty as the bill is implemented. We should not limit opportunities for Americans to protect their rights through our legal system.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution enshrines the protection of free speech and a press free from fear of retribution from the government. Protecting this right is a cornerstone of our democracy, and one that I am committed to upholding. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this bill so we can return to the table and negotiate a more comprehensive and effective approach to data privacy.

Once again, I urge my colleagues to vote no.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source