S.686 - RESTRICT Act

Background and Context:

The Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act (RESTRICT Act) aims to address national security concerns related to transactions involving information and communications technology products or services. The bill comes amid growing concerns about the potential risks posed by foreign adversaries, particularly China, in the technology sector.

The RESTRICT Act would give the Secretary of Commerce broad authority to review and prohibit transactions that involve information and communications technology products or services that pose an undue or unacceptable risk to national security or the safety of U.S. persons. The bill also establishes a process for identifying and addressing holdings in U.S. companies by foreign adversaries that pose similar risks.

---

Supporters and Opposition:

Supporters of the RESTRICT Act argue that it is necessary to protect U.S. national security interests and prevent foreign adversaries from exploiting vulnerabilities in the technology supply chain. They point to the increasing competition with China in the technology sector and the need to safeguard sensitive data and intellectual property.

Opponents of the bill may raise concerns about its potential impact on trade and innovation. Some critics argue that the bill's broad authority could lead to overreach and unintended consequences, such as stifling competition and limiting access to important technologies. There may also be concerns about the bill's compatibility with existing trade agreements and international commitments.

---

Legislative Process and Outlook:

The RESTRICT Act was introduced in the Senate on March 7, 2023, by a bipartisan group of senators led by Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Sen. John Thune (R-SD). The bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for consideration.

Given the bipartisan support for the bill and the growing concerns about technology-related national security risks, the RESTRICT Act has a reasonable chance of advancing through the legislative process. However, the bill may face scrutiny and potential amendments as it moves through Congress, particularly related to the scope of the Secretary's authority and the impact on trade and innovation.

---

Impact and Implications:

If enacted, the RESTRICT Act would have significant implications for companies involved in the development, manufacturing, and sale of information and communications technology products and services. The bill's broad authority could lead to increased scrutiny of transactions and holdings involving foreign entities, particularly those from countries designated as foreign adversaries.

The bill could also have implications for U.S. trade relations and global technology supply chains. Depending on how the Secretary of Commerce exercises the authority granted by the bill, it could lead to tensions with trading partners and concerns about protectionism.

Overall, the RESTRICT Act reflects the growing confluence of national security, technology, and trade policy issues in the United States. As policymakers grapple with these complex challenges, the bill represents an attempt to balance national security concerns with the need to maintain a competitive and innovative technology sector.

Grassroots Gameplan: Mobilizing Constituents in Critical Districts

To effectively influence the legislative process surrounding S.686, it's crucial to mobilize constituents in districts that can have the greatest impact on lawmakers' decisions. By targeting specific committees, cosponsors, non-cosponsors, and influential caucuses or coalitions, advocacy groups can focus their efforts and resources for maximum effect.

Committees

1. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation legislative districts:

• Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Chair
• Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Ranking Member
• Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
• Sen. John Thune (R-SD)
• Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI)
• Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)

2. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations districts:

• Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Chair

• Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), Ranking Member

• Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD)

• Sen. Todd Young (R-IN)

• Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT)

• Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY)

  Get Standing Committee Districts for Meta Ads geo-targeting locations

Cosponsors

As of March 7, 2024, S.686 has 26 cosponsors, with 12 Democrats, 13 Republicans, and 1 Independent. Focus on districts represented by these cosponsors to thank them for their support and encourage them to champion the bill among their colleagues.

Non-cosponsors

Send letters to senators who have not yet cosponsored the bill, particularly those from the Republican party, as they may be more likely to support the legislation given the bipartisan nature of the sponsor group. Some key non-cosponsors to target:

• Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Majority Leader
• Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Minority Leader
• Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Chair of the Senate Finance Committee
• Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee

  Thank Cosponsors, Inspire Them to Rally More Representatives

Influential caucuses or coalitions

Targeting members of Congress who belong to relevant caucuses or coalitions can help amplify your message and encourage them to influence their colleagues. Some key groups to consider:

• Senate Cybersecurity Caucus

  • Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), Co-Chair
  • Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Co-Chair
  • Sen. Angus King (I-ME)
  • Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)

By targeting these key districts and individuals, advocacy groups can maximize the impact of their grassroots letter-writing campaigns and work towards shaping the outcome of S.686.