WTAS: House Antitrust Package Will Give ‘Foreign Adversaries a Competitive Advantage,’ ‘Embolden China’
Bipartisan Chorus of Concern Over National Security, Economic Ramifications
Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander and commander of U.S. Southern Command Admiral James Stavridis, USN (Ret.): “The strength of America’s tech sector is a significant asset to our national defense. Policymakers should seek to protect consumers and strengthen America’s tech edge. Unfortunately, these policies have the potential to stifle innovation while giving our foreign adversaries a competitive advantage.”
Former White House Counterterrorism and Homeland Security Advisor Frances Townsend: “China wants to be the world’s dominant tech leader. In fact, President Biden stated that China believes it will ‘own America’ by 2035. This misguided legislation will only embolden China, paving the way for foreign adversaries to dominate the digital landscape, undermining a key national security advantage.”
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA): The bills “fall short and will create more harm than good for American consumers and the U.S. economy.”
- “Substantial concerns” the legislation could create vulnerabilities that expose user data.
Congressman Lou Correa (D-CA): “In my district, small businesses depend on services provided by these tech companies.”
- Correa: “At our state level, the state of California, these firms – high tech – are the reason California has a budget surplus as opposed to a deficit, enabling the state of California to invest in public education, to help those that have been affected by COVID, the middle class – those that are trying to get to the middle class. It is because of these budget surplus dollars that we’re able to take care of our friends and neighbors in California.”
- “Of course, as we speak about the national levels, we speak about the challenges this country has in investing in research and development, fighting cybercrimes, competing with China and others around the world – this is exactly what these firms are doing on a day-to-day basis. So, 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.”
Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA): CCIA: “[Issa] said he’s concerned these bills would exempt companies like Alibaba from interoperability requirements with U.S. companies. He said more consideration was needed about the scope of businesses that should be regulated under the bills.”
Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-CA): “So we would make an American company that has thousands of American jobs here in the United States – they would be subjected to these rules while foreign companies would not. So that’s why I’m going to oppose this bill.”
Congressman Steve Chabot (R-OH): “This is not limited just to the technology sector, which has got most of the attention. This could spread to other businesses, obviously larger at first. But, you know, one questions how far it would actually go. Congress ought to be doing what we can to reduce the costs rather than increase them, which is what this first bill does in particular, especially after just having gone through this pandemic with the business community, many of them through government action, having been shut down, a lot of workers being laid off. We need to get this economy moving again.”
Former National Security Council Member Michael Allen: “The House’s proposals set its sights on knee-capping America’s largest technology providers while affording more favorable treatment to foreign technology rivals.”
- “The House bills could not only hamstring some of the largest drivers of U.S. innovation, but also impede the ability of these companies to create millions of new American jobs just as the economy is gearing up for a rebound…Meanwhile, under the proposed legislative package, Chinese and Russian technology giants would remain unscathed — in fact, they would directly benefit from greater access to U.S. technology as well as the data of U.S. citizens and businesses.”
###