[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 63 (Thursday, April 11, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2409-S2410]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Nomination of David Steven Morales

  Mr. President, before I conclude, I wish to make brief remarks on the 
nomination of David Morales to be a Federal judge for the Southern 
District of Texas, who was just confirmed yesterday evening. Yesterday 
the Senate began its consideration on this nomination at 4 p.m. and 
voted on the confirmation around 6 p.m.
  Under the new rules, we had just about 2 hours of time on the Senate 
floor to debate the nomination for a lifetime appointment to the 
Federal judiciary. I would have liked to have made these comments 
before that time. But with these severe limits, it is very difficult 
for Senators, if they have other obligations within the building or 
constituent visits or hearings going on, to be able to make it within 
the 2-hour period that we are now allowed, which is actually a 1-hour 
period.
  There was much more to be concerned about with respect to this 
nominee, which is why I am making these comments now. To name one 
example, during his time in the Texas Attorney General's Office, he has 
participated in cases that have undermined American voting rights. In 
2007 he submitted an amicus brief before the Supreme Court in support 
of an Indiana voter ID law. The brief argued that requiring voters to 
have photo IDs was only ``a negligible burden on the right to vote.'' 
They should ask that of some of our seniors in Minnesota who have voted 
for decades and decades and decades and are well-known by election 
officials and, in our State, are able to show up at the voting booth 
and be able to vote or maybe they don't have a driver's license because 
they no longer drive. These are examples that go on across the United 
States. In many States that have these restrictions, these people are 
literally turned away from voting.
  It is one of the reasons that the voters of my State turned away a 
proposal that was on our ballot to have these restrictive photo-ID 
requirements. It sounds good, but then when you really look under the 
hood, you find that it limits voting. It was especially difficult for 
people in our rural areas and our seniors to accept this change, and 
they didn't.
  We also know that voter ID laws have a disproportionate impact on 
voters who are low income, racial and ethnic minorities, elderly, and 
people with disabilities.
  The nominee also defended Texas's ban on same-sex marriage. In 2010 
he signed on to a brief arguing that Texas had a right to ban same-sex 
marriage. The Supreme Court rejected similar arguments in Obergefell v. 
Hodges, which found that the Constitution guarantees the right to marry 
for same-sex couples.
  These issues are about how our democracy functions and about treating 
people equally under the law and with respect.
  It is the Senate's constitutional responsibility to give its advice 
and consent on lifetime nominees to the Federal bench. These 
nominations are too important to turn the Senate into a mere 
rubberstamp. The Senate must maintain its role as a meaningful check 
and balance in our constitutional system, and I join my colleagues in 
expressing my deep concern about the pace at which we are confirming 
these nominees.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                S. 1116

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. President. Today I rise to speak about 
the legislation I introduced to the Senate this week, S. 1116, the 
BROWSER ACT.

[[Page S2410]]

  Broadband or high-speed internet has absolutely revolutionized the 
way we communicate, the way we conduct commerce, and actually the way 
we participate in government.
  Broadband is one of the greatest innovations in history. It allows 
near-instantaneous exchange of information and brings efficiencies to 
the daily life of millions of Americans as they move more of their 
transactional life online.
  Thanks to broadband, entrepreneurs have been able to bring thousands 
of new applications to consumers. These edge services are now an 
essential part of our lives. We find ourselves every day saying: I 
can't imagine what we did before we had this or before we had that. 
These apps give consumers access to entertainment, news, information, 
helping us drive around town, and access to emergency services.
  As consumers use these applications, they generate massive amounts of 
data about themselves, and that is the problem. Many companies collect 
this data and use it for a range of purposes without the user's 
knowledge.
  They are collecting all of this--every bill you pay, every website 
you visit, these platforms are following you.
  After all this information is shared, the question is, Who owns the 
virtual you? Who owns you and your presence online? Our laws have not 
kept pace with technological innovation.
  Now we see some States and we even have some cities that are adding 
more complexity to the problem by enacting their own privacy rules and 
standards, despite the fact that digital commerce is not restricted to 
one area. Digital commerce is interstate and global in nature.
  It is time we have a consistent national law regarding online 
privacy. We need one set of rules and one regulator for the entire 
internet ecosystem. It just makes sense.
  That is why I have introduced the legislation I previously proposed 
as a Member of the House of Representatives. As I said, it is called 
the BROWSER Act. Americans want to be certain their privacy is 
protected in the physical and the virtual space. Broadband users--who 
are each and every one of us--should have the right to say who can or 
cannot access their private data.
  Think about it. At this point, how and when you pay your bills, the 
credit cards you use, the sites you visit, the merchandise you shop 
for, friends you connect with, there is somebody tracking that activity 
with every move of the mouse. They are on it.
  Consumers should have the right to clear and conspicuous notice of a 
service providers' privacy policies and the ability to either opt in or 
opt out, depending on the sensitive nature of that data. The BROWSER 
Act requires digital services to provide users with clear and 
conspicuous notice of their privacy rights. It also requires digital 
services to provide users the ability to opt in to the collection of 
sensitive information while also giving users the ability to opt out of 
the collection of nonsensitive information.
  By allowing for a clear and conspicuous notification process, 
consumers will be able to make a more educated choice about the nature 
of the relationship they want to have with online vendors and with tech 
companies.
  Furthermore, the BROWSER Act will prohibit digital services from 
denying their service to users who refuse to waive their personal 
privacy rights. The BROWSER Act also empowers the FTC, the Federal 
Trade Commission, to enforce these rules using its unfair or deceptive 
acts or practices authorities.
  Now the Federal Trade Commission has been our privacy regulator in 
both the physical and the online space. Just this week, Senator 
Klobuchar and I sent a letter to the FTC urging stronger action for bad 
actors in the tech space. Companies like Facebook and Google have 
transformed society in revolutionary ways and need to recognize that 
with that great power comes great responsibility. This is the 21st 
century; it is not the Wild West. These tech companies need to be 
respectful of your privacy rights.

  My hope is that through this bipartisan effort, we will shed light on 
the need to protect competition and online privacy to keep up with the 
fast-paced changes in technology. The FTC has a responsibility to hold 
tech companies accountable for securing their platforms. We need them 
to step up and be the cop on the beat in the virtual space.
  Before I yield the floor, I want to make one last point. The BROWSER 
Act treats everyone in broadband and edge companies exactly the same--
one regulator, one set of rules. This is common sense.
  Unfortunately, yesterday, Democrats in the House passed a bill to 
regulate broadband service providers, but they didn't do anything to 
Big Tech. They didn't do anything about privacy with Google, with 
Facebook, with Yahoo--these people who collect your data and sell it to 
the highest bidder; then that person markets back to you.
  When I chaired the Communications and Technology Subcommittee in the 
House, I repeatedly offered to work with the other side of the aisle to 
preserve a free and open internet. I am always happy to work together 
to find a legislative solution and put this so-called net neutrality 
issue to rest once and for all. Rather than work together on this, the 
House pushed through a hyperpartisan bill to reinstate a controversial, 
heavyhanded regulation of communication companies, but--heaven forbid--
they do not want to touch Big Tech, their big buddies.
  I am so grateful Leader McConnell has said that this bill coming from 
the House is dead on arrival in the Senate. I look forward to 
continuing to work on this issue. But here is what my friends across 
the aisle and my friends over in the House need to realize: The 
internet is not broken. The internet is not broken. Many of you 
probably have an electronic device close at hand. It is working just 
fine. The internet does not need the intervention of Nancy Pelosi and 
House Democrats. It is fine. It is going to be just fine by itself. In 
fact, as an alternative, we could just strike out the text of the 
House-passed bill and insert the BROWSER Act in its place--one set of 
rules for the entire internet ecosystem, one set of rules enforced by 
one Federal regulator. That is the BROWSER Act. It is about fairness. 
It is about encouraging innovation. It is about making certain we keep 
a free and open internet.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The majority leader.