Tech privacy bill pits GOP president against House leaders

A bipartisan data privacy bill is dividing House Republicans and pitting the chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee against GOP leadership.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) are spearheading the American Privacy Rights Act, a bill long-awaited bill that would create comprehensive federal data privacy regulations.

The legislation would be a major career achievement for McMorris Rodgers, who will retire from Congress at the end of the year. But top Republican Party leaders made their opposition to the bill in its current form known to GOP members, raising doubts about its eventual vote.

“There have been a lot of concerns expressed for months about different parts of the bill,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) told The Hill.

Despite opposition from leadership, the Energy and Commerce Committee will consider the American Privacy Rights Act at a markup on Thursday.

McMorris Rodgers and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) were seen in what appeared to be a tense conversation on the House floor Wednesday.

“I am committed to working with leadership and look forward to continuing to take steps moving forward,” McMorris Rodgers told The Hill.

“It is urgent that Congress act on behalf of our children and on behalf of our nation to protect people online,” she added.

Johnson said that while the goal of the bill is important, the details worry people.

“I told her that I am committed to working with her to try to find a solution to these concerns, and it will take a little more work,” Johnson said. “If they make the markup, that won’t be the whole story. We will address the marked version and go back for further discussion and bring in the interest groups and people who have concerns about this and see if we can alleviate that concern.”

Scalise added that he hopes the project’s issues are resolved in committee.

The American Privacy Rights Act would establish data privacy rules, seeking to create a federal law rather than the emerging patchwork of state rules and align the US with other countries that have moved forward with data privacy regulation. The bill would give people more control over their data, including adding requirements that would allow users to opt out of targeted advertising and data transfers.

A key bipartisan balance the bill sought was between allowing preemption of state laws, which Republicans had been advocating, and allowing consumers to seek financial compensation through the courts, which Democrats had sought.

But this ability to take legal action – known as a private right of action – is one of the leadership’s main points of opposition.

“The private right of action is a big concern — the fact that you can use trial lawyers for every small business in America,” Scalise said. “We’ve seen the patent troll abuses we’ve had for years, small businesses being attacked by lawyers for things they never did wrong and yet they had to spend thousands of dollars each to make it go away.”

Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a lower-ranking member of leadership as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, also said that fear of excessive lawsuits is driving GOP opposition to the project.

“It’s one of those things where maybe there could be a lot of unintended consequences,” said Palmer, who added that he was still evaluating the project. “But the intention is right in trying to protect people, especially children, in their privacy.”

The version of the bill the committee will debate Thursday has been updated since emerging from a subcommittee meeting last month. Some of these changes have prompted other criticisms of the legislation, in addition to concerns raised by Republican leadership.

Dozens of civil society organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP and the Human Rights Campaign, sent a letter to committee chairs on Tuesday, urging them to postpone the appointment and reverse an update that removed “core civil rights protections and algorithmic auditing provisions.” ” The groups stressed the need for protections given the lack of regulations on artificial intelligence (AI).

“The deletion of these provisions is an immensely significant and unacceptable change to the bill and its scope. They should not have been removed. Worse still, they were removed without prior consultation with stakeholders and without studying the impact on the bill’s ability to address data-based discrimination in housing, employment, credit, education, health care, insurance, and other economic opportunities,” they wrote. the groups.

“Failing to include sufficient safeguards means Congress will leave every person in America unprotected from harmful AI technology.”

The Center for Democracy and Technology, which relies on funding from major technology companies, was among the letter’s signatories. CDT also raised concerns about the bill’s current language, including an exclusion of “on-device data” from the bill’s regulations.

Eric Null, co-director of the CDT’s Privacy and Data Project, said the exemption is “too broad” and “appears to be a giant gap in the bill.”

Business and advertising groups are also pushing back on the legislation, adding to the many hurdles McMorris Rodgers and Cantwell face in getting a privacy bill passed before the end of the session in a contentious election year.

The bill has the support, however, of the Heritage Foundation, a highly influential conservative think tank. Kara Frederick, director of Heritage’s Tech Policy Center, said in a statement last week that unfettered data collection “is at the root of nearly every challenge we face as conservatives” and has “given rise to a host of threats that undermine our rights fundamental.” and values.”

Legislation up for debate Thursday left in place state preemption provisions, which could trigger backlash from members of the California delegation, who have raised concerns about federal laws that preempt state-implemented regulations. The updated version of the text, however, includes an exemption relating to laws regarding minors.

The bill would establish an exemption that any state law that “provides greater protection to children or adolescents” will not be prohibited, establishing a floor rather than a ceiling for state protections for minors.

Children’s online safety has emerged as a rare point of bipartisan agreement in Congress. During Thursday’s meeting, the committee will also approve the Children’s Online Safety Act, a bill that would regulate how technology platforms operate for minors online.

A Senate version of the Children’s Online Safety Act has more than 60 cosponsors but has not yet received a vote in the Senate.

Mychael Schnell contributed.

This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story