Cantwell Undecided on Potential Senate Markup for TikTok Bill

The Senate Commerce Committee needs to meet with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and the Senate Intelligence Committee before deciding on potentially marking up TikTok-related national security legislation, Chair Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., told reporters Thursday (see 2403130039).

Cantwell said she’s open to marking up the Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (HR-7521), which the House approved Wednesday, or her own legislation. She has circulated draft language for the Guard Act, which would direct the Commerce Department to block certain data transfers to adversarial countries. The Senate Intelligence Committee has proposed a similar concept with the Restrict Act.

Cantwell said she hasn’t spoken to Schumer since House passage of HR-7521. Had she been a House member, would she have voted for the bill? “I don’t know," Cantwell said. "I would have probably spent the time before making the decision.” Ultimately, Congress needs to approve a bill that’s constitutional and “sustainable,” she said. Cantwell noted that two separate federal judges blocked former President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking a ban on TikTok transactions in the U.S.

The “natural next step” would be for Cantwell to schedule a markup for the House bill, ranking member Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told reporters Thursday. “That’s certainly something she’s considering. She’s going to have to make that decision. I don’t know what Chuck Schumer wants to do. He’s been completely silent on this.” Forcing ByteDance to divest TikTok would be a positive step toward protecting children and national security, said Cruz, calling the app a spy tool for the Chinese government.

Cantwell is “very aware” of the national security concerns, said Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va. The Guard Act and the Restrict Act are “a little more comprehensive” than the House bill, said Warner: But it’s “about getting stuff done. Perfect can be the enemy of the good.” He called Wednesday’s House vote “pretty remarkable.”

Yet Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said the U.S. can’t just tell 180 million TikTok users they have no right to online expression. He noted federal courts have struck down similar measures, including the law in Montana and the two decisions against Trump’s EO. There are First and Fifth amendment issues, said Paul: The U.S. can’t accuse a company of crime and force the company to sell without any due process, said Paul. He said a lot of the TikTok criticisms come from people who don’t like the platform's content: “You can’t take their company from them just because you don’t like them, based on an accusation. ... If you don’t like something, don’t use it. That’s what happens in a free country.”

For members “who say they have concerns, OK, fine,” said Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo. “Let’s take it up. Let’s put it on the floor. Let’s amend it. Let’s legislate, you know. What a concept.” Hawley said Trump’s original position, before he reversed his stance and opposed a potential TikTok ban in recent weeks, was correct. Hawley recalled speaking with Trump “at length” about his concerns four years ago.

Trump in his most recent remarks raised concerns about Facebook benefiting from a de facto TikTok ban. FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr said Thursday he shares Trump’s Facebook concerns and that amassing power in Silicon Valley needs addressing. “I agree with President Trump that we [should] take a look at the Valley incubation of power,” Carr said. However, Carr framed the potential ban as ultimately in line with Trump’s efforts to “reorient D.C.” toward “the serious threat posed by Communist China.” There’s almost “universal agreement” TikTok “poses a clear and present danger,” he said.

The House bill “feels like a de facto ban,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., told reporters Wednesday after voting against the measure on the House floor. “It felt like it was too rushed. There was no amendment process” or an opportunity to address concerns about the Constitution and freedom of expression. Forcing a company to sell in fewer than six months also raises antitrust concerns, she added. And the bill applies to only four countries -- China, Russia, North Korea and Iran -- so nothing would stop a company in a country like Saudi Arabia from buying the app, she said.

The basic concept of separating TikTok from the Chinese government is “very well-founded” given the national security implications, said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. He anticipates that if the bill is taken up in the Senate, there will be “hearings, a committee markup, some debate on the floor.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told reporters Thursday he’s leaning “very strongly yes” if the Senate takes up the measure. Grassley noted he still needed to review intelligence-related information about the proposal. Divestment would be a “big decision” because there’s such a focus on one specific company, which serves 170 million Americans who “enjoy the app,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.