Welcome to Politically Speaking.

I'm Elizabeth Bennion, Chancellor's professor of political science and director of Community Engagement and the American Democracy Project at Indiana University, South Bend.

The social media platform TikTok has come under scrutiny due to national security concerns stemming from ownership by Chinese company Bytedance.

The US House passed a bill aimed at Tik Tok to either be sold or face a ban.

us today to discuss this issue and more is Tim Walberg, a US House of Representative from Michigan's fifth Congressional District.

Thanks for being here, Congressman.

Well, Professor, it's good to be with you.

I almost feel like I represent you all anyway, since my district runs right along the Indiana border and Ohio border.

But that's just been special for us.

Absolutely.

Michigan, a district for sure.

Now, I want to start by asking you about a bill that you co-sponsored that would regulate tick tock.

And I want I wonder if you could talk a little bit about what your bill would do and how it's different from other type of legislation proposed to target platforms with foreign ownership.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

And I appreciate the fact that you use the term regulate instead of ban, because Tick Tock has put out information, of course, trying to defend their own case that we are banning tick tock.

We aren't doing that we don't use the term ban.

It is a divestiture.

It's basically saying we're not going after content in this bill.

We're not trying to regulate content, even though some of us have concerns about the content that's on there at times.

And then packed on in users of that app.

But we're we're saying we're going after control.

Any any entity in the world we believe should have the opportunity to control tick tock and use tick tock and shape tick tock except adversarial countries or entities that have direct ties to adversarial countries in this case.

Tick Tock is owned by Bytedance and Bytedance is under the the complete control of the Chinese Communist Party.

They have to be in order to do work in the United States.

Any company that comes here has to sign a document that they will provide control to the Chinese Communist Party.

That's our problem.

Regardless of the content of Tik Tok, as I said or or some of the antics that subscribers to Tik Tok put on their platform.

That's not the issue.

It's the fact that we have a national security problem when the algorithms that are on Tik Tok are controlled by the Chinese Communist Party to pick up information data, etc.

that the Chinese Communist Party can control.

That's a concern.

If it was North Korea, if it was Iran, if it was Russia, the same concern would be there.

And so we've defined adversarial countries as being those four.

So the concern then is not the content, but the national security risk that you perceive by sort of data mining through Tik Tok.

Yes, absolutely.

And again, I'm glad you put it that way, because in fact, the day that we had the bill up in our energy and Commerce Committee for the markup, all of a sudden all of the offices of members of the Energy and Commerce Committee in which I sit began receiving hundreds, hundreds of phone calls from Tik Tok users.

And these were primarily young people or young adults who were calling at the behest of Tik Tok, who had put on their screen as it opened that morning to make it appear that they couldn't use their platform unless they put in their zip code, which would then give them Tik Tok, would supply them with their member of Congress that they needed a call to tell that member to not ban Tik Tok.

And so we had people in fact, sadly, we had five death threats that came in.

We had to report that we had a number of our callers who indicated they would commit suicide if we banned Tik Tok.

How tragic is that?

But it began to show us, Democrats and Republicans, the power at that very instant that Tik Tok had, that the Chinese Communist Party had it in shaping the response to an issue by their users, how that could be used during campaign times, politically motivated, how it could be used to shape people based upon their user ship, what they looked at.

You know, we've heard concerns about people, young people, especially being geared toward changing their lives through suicide, etc..

So several votes that had been indicated that they were going to vote against the bill on committee, it changed and ultimately committee in a unanimous vote, passed the bill out of committee to call for the divestiture of Tik Tok from Bytedance and open it up for any other entity that wasn't connected with one of the four adversarial countries to begin controlling the content of Tik Tok.

Now, since 2022, Tik Tok has reported you as data to Oracle and taxes.

Why doesn't that address your concerns?

Well, if I just went there to Oracle, that'd be one thing.

But under questioning a year ago, I asked the chairman of of Tik Tok, Mr. Chu, a direct question.

And it's it was played across the nation on on our news platforms.

I asked him, I said, is any of that information that you gain, the data that you gain from your users of Tik Tok seen by the Chinese Communist Party?

And he lied to me.

And when I say lie, because less than two weeks later, we found true internal documents, communications of Tik Tok itself that indicated that it wasn't housed in Virginia, as he said, completely, but rather the Chinese Communist Party had the ability to see all of that data.

That's a concern.

So you can have the Texas project, you can have it put in Virginia.

But now we find out that very truthfully, China has all of that data.

That's a concern.

Now, President Biden has indicated some support in terms of signing a bill of this type.

What would you say to members of the Senate who are undecided about their votes?

Pass it.

That's what I'd say.

Professor, first of all, I'd say pass it for the health of our country, let alone the health of our kids.

But the health of our country is the key thing.

It's national security.

President Trump attempted to ban it toward the end of his terms in office, and the courts threw that out on First Amendment grounds.

We have spent a year developing this legislation, make sure that it did not touch the First Amendment issues.

We're not controlling content that can continue on for good or evil as it is.

We're saying the control aspect of it and based upon national security, we don't want any control given to any of our adversarial countries.

So I'm hoping that my colleagues in the Senate, first and foremost, starting with Chuck Schumer, who on several occasions has indicated his concern about China having any control of Tik Tok or any of the platforms and that he supported making sure that they didn't have that control, that number one.

As leader of the Senate, he will bring that up, bring it up for a vote subsequently.

I hope that some of my Libertarian colleague friends over in the Senate will see that this is not detracting from our free expression.

Our free speech opportunities, but rather it is simply saying that that this ought to be a platform that's still available.

People want to use it, but it is owned and controlled by an entity that does not have ill intent toward our country.

Sounds like one point you really want people to understand is that although there may be concerns about the influence of social media on people's behavior more generally, that's not what this is about.

This really is about national security and foreign adversaries having that access and that potential power over people, but also over their data.

And it's a very different thing.

Yeah, absolutely.

That's exactly that's exactly what we're saying.

Whether I like the platform or not, whether I like Facebook or whether I like Instagram or or any other platform out there, that's not the question.

I think Congress has to look at Section 230.

I think we have to look at privacy concerns relative to the Internet's and and the the social web, social media.

And I think we have to look at that cautiously.

We have to make sure that there is a light touch regulation by government.

We don't want to stopped innovation or the competition out there.

It's an amazing media, but there are dangers.

But in this case, we're dealing with foreign adversaries, not not us.

Maybe, maybe I could say it this way, though.

It's facetious to some degree us home grown adversaries that we can look at.

But by and large, what we're saying here is that whether you like the media, the platform or not, the content, etc., the freedom is still there as long as it's not given to the control of one of our adversaries in this world.

Let me ask a couple other questions about people liking Tik Tok, even some of the politicians who have indicated that they would support a bill that offers this type of regulation that you've discussed.

Are often themselves on Tik Tok, particularly when it comes to campaign season.

What do you think about that?

Is it just a lure that's there is this table in terms of reaching people or what would you say to those colleagues?

Yeah, it's just one of those and I get it.

I understand why.

President Biden, while he says he will sign this bill, still has a platform on Tik Tok for his campaign purposes.

I assume that that former President Trump as well has that.

And when you're going after the youth vote and the younger adult vote, Tik Tok is a is a platform that you're going to look at because it's it's used extensively, 170 million to be exact, at least within a margin of error.

So I think politicians will use it.

We don't use Tik Tok.

That's our choice.

And we may use Tik Tok in the future if it gets away from Chinese control or involvement, but I would assume that's probably the reason.

Without having asked President Biden his actual reason for using it for campaign purposes, I would bet that's a case.

He doesn't want to take himself off the opportunity to get to the younger citizenry of this country that are the major users users of Tik Tok.

Speaking of younger citizenry, should Congress do more to regulate children's access to such platforms?

Is there anything Congress can or should do?

Well, parents ought to do that.

First and foremost.

That's their responsibility.

But I think we have to look at the privacy issues.

We have to look at the algorithms that are used to follow the interests of kids who by nature of their use will be interested in all things, and especially things that that their parents may not want them to be interested in.

So I think that's where the light touch regulation needs to come in.

We want to think if we would have taken control of the Internet like I would suggest President Obama wanted to do, we would have stopped the expansion, the capabilities that go way beyond just communication research, data, etc., that are there.

And I think we to squash some of that innovation.

But in turn, I think we are we have to be responsible in saying it can't be fair game for anything.

That would be anarchy.

I think we have to look at means by which we can protect especially young people from the privacy concerns that ultimately will will impact their life in negative ways in the future.

The data mining that goes in by nefarious entities that will actually hurt our kids, hurt our future, hurt their future, and gain information that can be used in in tragic ways.

So on Energy and Commerce Committee, we are talking about that significantly.

And I think I think there will be legislation soon on privacy, especially child privacy, that will all of a sudden come up very quickly in order to make sure that we can do that without untoward outward influence, trying to squash it and then bringing it up for committee amendment process, the markup process, and then probably quickly to a vote to move it forward for the good of our country.

You mentioned data mining.

The House did pass a bill to disallow data brokers from selling private information to foreign adversaries.

How does that apply, if at all, to allies?

And should there be more regulation in that respect domestically?

I think there has to be.

Again, that's a very difficult thing because you're looking at First Amendment issues.

But as a conservative myself, you're also looking at free, free market capitalism, free enterprise, and you're also looking at the aspect of when does it come to personal responsibility to make those choices.

So it's it's a fine line, but I think we do have a responsibility to protect our our citizens against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

And so we can't absolve our own country.

It's it's it's it's actors that are out there as well as businesses that are out there, platforms that are out there from being a detrimental, I guess, detrimental point of impact upon the security of our country as well as it's a fine line as far as you know, Professor, I again, we want to allow expansion, but we want to also make sure it's done in a way that that isn't aggressively negative for our country and its citizens.

Now, you mentioned enemies both foreign and domestic.

And one of the things we know about the current political landscape is that Democrats and Republicans are increasingly likely to define each other as enemies.

To what extent does this political polarization affect Congress's ability to get important things done for the American people to find common ground on important issues?

Well, it makes it tougher.

And it's true.

We are we are extremely a diverse from the widest spectrum, as opposed to being divided over the minor things.

And it does make it difficult.

But if we go back and review history, we find out that the federals who put this this country together said that democracy, our form of democracy, which is a republic under a constitution, is going to be messy.

It should be messy, it should be slow in in moving and changing it, because this is such a precious commodity for our world.

There's never been a country like it.

I don't think there is a country like it today completely.

And I think we could find much more agreement if we send our minds and hearts around the Constitution.

And if we looked at that as not a living, breathing document, the change, but for right now, a document that defines where we need to be, I think you would find the majority of Democrats and Republicans at a point where they could work together.

And so that's that's been my effort as a as a true conservative.

I still believe that the Constitution not only protects me, but protects those that are progressive liberals as well.

If we will say let's fight within the confines of that document, I think we'd find more opportunity to compromise toward the good.

And that compromise wouldn't be an evil word, but would be a good word that says nobody gets 100%.

But we continue to move forward for the good of the country and in fact, for the good of the world.

You raise a good point, which is that that document certainly sets up a governmental system that requires compromise to get anything done with the goal of creating good for all of the people or as many people as possible.

At the same time, there's so much that's happened since the document was written that everything's not spelled out there.

So how does that work in terms of thinking about what is actually written there in the Constitution and and how much can that settle some of these disputes?

Well, you have to take it literally.

You have to take it in the minds.

And you can read the Federalist Papers, for instance, and you can determine what our framers and founders thought about the issues that they faced.

And frankly, you read the Federalist Papers, there's very few issues that we aren't still talking about today.

The mandatory process, which is what you do.

I mean, the fact that slavery was ultimately done away with and that voting rights were given to women as well as men, you know, we we continue to perfect this this great union.

And so I would encourage people that have problems with how we use the Constitution today to take it literally.

And then if you feel you need to change it, then there's that a mandatory root that has been used in the past.

And there are some amendments in the constitution that I don't like, I don't agree with, but I have to live by it.

I don't like the 16th Amendment with the income tax and the IRS.

I don't like the 17 Amendment that took away the state's responsibility to select U.S. senators.

But it's there and until it's changed, we have to live by that.

And I think that's the same with all of the rest of our of our documents.

That great constitution.

And if we accept that fact, I think we could get along better now and then.

If there are changes that need to be made, there's a way to do that.

And let's do it through the Constitution itself, not through the court system.

Of course, the Constitution sets up that process for making laws, but much of these decisions really many of these decisions come down to what happens then in that lawmaking asset.

So back to that question of how Congress can actually get things done, I want to just discuss briefly the issue of border security.

As you know, there was a bipartisan deal on the table.

Many Republicans rejected that deal.

Is this an issue that the parties will be able to come together on in terms of border security or more broad immigration reform?

We've seen president after president, Democrat and Republican, attempt to move this forward.

What is happening and will there be any agreement before the 2024 election?

Or do we have to wait at least until then to see any real movement?

Well, I hope not.

We know what works.

H.R.

two, the bill that we passed in the House twice, sent to the Senate and sits in the Senate.

We know it works because it worked during the Trump administration.

That's what he used.

We didn't have thousands.

We didn't have hundreds of people crossing the border illegally.

At the end of the Trump administration, because that policy was in place, I saw it myself being at the border then and now.

Being at the border just this past year, I've seen total, total loss of that, that policy.

And then the results are sad to see, including loss of life, the drug incursion into our country, the terrorists that are attempting to get in.

And we know that most likely there are many in this country now that are part of the got away group.

We know how to fix it.

It's a political thing.

And you have to begin to accept the fact that the other side, the administration, wants it to be this way or else they would do something about it.

So I'm hoping the pressure builds what they attempted to put across as a bipartisan solution in the Senate wouldn't have worked.

I don't think we can do comprehensive immigration reform until we get the border secure.

If we get the border secure, then I think there are things we could do on on the line of of immigration reform.

So I'm hoping that as the pressure builds toward the election, that my Democrat colleagues will see that this is detrimental to them.

The number one issue of concern all across the country, since every state is a border state now with a problem, not just Michigan, not just Texas, not just Arizona, California, but every state that we will find some means by which we can get the basic stuff done, like stay in Mexico, like asylum requirements coming at the first country you come to that you are safe as opposed to coming to America.

Those are things I think we ought to do for the good of the country, for the good of our citizens.

And we'll see what happens.

We'll see what happens.

At this point, it seems like both parties are saying the other party just wants this to remain a political issue until the election.

So I guess I don't like the timeline.

I don't want it.

I don't want I'd like to fix it now.

And I think they're a good number of us.

So my Democrat colleagues as well that I've talked to, they don't like it either.

It has an impact upon their constituencies and so I'm hoping that cooler heads will prevail and at least we'll get a portion of it done, maybe as a result of dealing with Israel and Ukraine.

Well, that's all the time we have for this week's politically speaking.

I want to thank our guest, Tim Walberg, U.S. House representative for Michigan's fifth District.

I'm Elizabeth Bennion, reminding you that it takes all of us to make democracy work.

We'll see you next time.

This WNIT Local production has been made possible in part by viewers like you.

Thank you.