[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 101 (Thursday, June 10, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4045-S4048]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION

      By Mr. PADILLA (for himself, Ms. Warren, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. 
        Markey):
  S. 2004. A bill to provide for the basic needs of students at 
institutions of higher education; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mrs. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
``BASIC Act,'' which I introduced today.
  I know how important it is to help students cover the full cost of 
attending college, including tuition and fees, housing, food, 
transportation, books, medical, childcare and supplies.
  In California, even though State and institutional aid programs cover 
full tuition and fees for about half of students attending a California 
State University, University of California and California Community 
College, students struggle to pay for the remaining cost of attendance.
  Each year, over 300,000 eligible applicants do not receive a state 
Cal Grant because of limited availability. Non-tuition college costs 
can exceed $20K annually. Low-income students may spend about half 
their family income on out-of-pocket costs after grant aid. This bill 
will help accelerate California's work to make college affordable and 
provide funding to reach more schools across California and across our 
Nation. This is especially important at a time when community college 
enrollment has slowed during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly among 
students of color, lower-income students, and students who have left to 
work or take care of family members.
  As we work to build back better and increase affordability and 
accessibility

[[Page S4046]]

of higher education, we must help our students stay in school.
  That is why I am proud to introduce this bill to authorize $1 billion 
for a new grant program to help institutions of higher education meet 
students' basic needs.
  This funding represents an essential aspect of building more 
equitable paths to higher education, and it represents an investment in 
our students, our institutions, and our future.
  This legislation recognizes the disproportionate impact this pandemic 
has on vulnerable populations and it helps coordinate assistance across 
federal agency lines.
  I want to thank Senator Warren and Representative Torres for 
introducing this bill with me, and I hope our colleagues will join us 
in support of this bill that ensures no student is forced to choose 
between their education and food or housing.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Cortez 
        Masto, and Ms. Klobuchar):
  S. 2008. A bill to strengthen the United States Interagency Council 
on Homelessness; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Mr. REED, Mr. President, along with Senator Collins, I am 
reintroducing legislation that would eliminate the sunset date for the 
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (the Council or 
USICH) so that this agency can build upon its success in helping to 
prevent and end homelessness nationally.
  The Council was established under the Reagan Administration as part 
of the landmark Mckinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, Since 
that time, it has worked across the Federal government and the private 
sector to coordinate homeless assistance nationally. In 2009, e 
Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act, 
which I authored along with Senator Collins, expanded the Council's 
role to work with public, non-profit, and private stakeholders to 
develop a national strategic plan to end homelessness. According to the 
Council, the Council's work ``has helped drive homelessness down by 9% 
and helped 82 communities effectively end veteran homelessness and four 
end chronic homelessness'' since 2010.
  Even with this progress, the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development's 2020 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress found 
that on ``a single night in 2020, roughly 580,000 people were 
experiencing homelessness in the United States'' and ``2020 mark] ed] 
the first time since data collection began that more individuals 
experiencing homelessness were unsheltered than were sheltered.''
  Clearly, we have more work to do. and if anything, COVID-19 has 
further highlighted the critical importance of housing. Indeed, for 
many families, their homes may be the single most effective and 
accessible form of personal protective equipment. And we also know that 
continuing to invest in programs to address homelessness and increase 
affordable housing pays additional dividends. According to Crossroads 
Rhode Island, a homeless services organization, ``In 2016, 
approximately 90% of individuals experiencing homelessness in Rhode 
Island were on Medicaid,'' and ``The average annual Medicaid cost for a 
person experiencing homelessness in Rhode Island ($14,723) was 80% 
higher than that of the average Medicaid recipient ($8,200).'' In 
short, helping families avoid homelessness can actually save taxpayers 
money.
  This is what we call a win-win, and the Council is uniquely 
positioned to facilitate a whole of government approach that marshals 
the resources of the Council's 19 federal member agencies to help more 
communities effectively address homelessness and also potentially save 
taxpayer funds. Our bipartisan legislation ensures that the Council's 
doors remain open until there truly is an end to homelessness 
nationwide.
  I thank the many groups that support our legislation including the 
National Low Income Housing Coalition, Local Initiatives Support 
Corporation, the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, 
HousingWorksRI, and others. I urge our colleagues to join Senator 
Collins and me in supporting this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 2009. A bill to promote transparency by permitting the Public 
Company Accounting Oversight Board to allow its disciplinary 
proceedings to be open to the public, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President. the Public Company Accounting Oversight 
Board (PCAOB) Enforcement Transparency Act, which I reintroduce today 
with Senator Grassley, will bring needed transparency to the 
disciplinary proceedings the PCAOB has brought against auditors and 
audit firms earlier in the process.
  Nearly two decades ago, in response to a series of massive financial 
reporting frauds, including those involving Enron and WorldCom. the 
Senate Banking Committee held multiple hearings, which produced 
consensus on various underlying causes, including weak corporate 
governance, a lack of accountability, and inadequate oversight of 
accountants charged with auditing public companies' financial 
statements. Later, in a 99 to 0 vote, the Senate passed the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002 to address the structural weaknesses revealed by the 
hearings. Among its many provisions, this law called for the creation 
of an independent board, the PCAOB, responsible for overseeing auditors 
of public companies in order to protect investors who rely on 
independent audit reports on the financial statements of public 
companies.
  Today, the PCAOB, under the oversight of the U.S. Securities and 
Exchange Commission (SEC), oversees more than 1,700 registered 
accounting firms, as well as the audit partners and staff who 
contribute to a firm's work on each audit. The Board's ability to begin 
proceedings that can determine whether there have been violations of 
its auditing standards or rules of professional practice is a crucial 
component of its oversight. However, unlike other oversight bodies, the 
Board's disciplinary proceedings cannot be made public without consent 
from the parties involved. Of course, parties subject to disciplinary 
proceedings have no incentive to consent to publicizing their alleged 
wrongdoing and these proceedings typically remain cloaked behind a veil 
of secrecy. In addition, the Board cannot publicize the results of its 
disciplinary proceedings until after the appeals process has been 
completely exhausted, which can often take several years.
  This lack of transparency invites abuse and undermines the 
Congressional intent behind the PCAOB, which was to shine a bright 
light on auditing firms and practices, deter misconduct and bolster the 
accountability of auditors of public companies to the investing public.
  Our bill will restore transparency by making hearings by the PCAOB, 
and all related notices, orders, and motions, transparent and available 
to the public unless otherwise ordered by the Board. This would more 
closely align the PCAOB's procedures with those of the SEC for 
analogous matters.
  Increasing transparency and accountability of audit firms subject to 
PCAOB disciplinary proceedings bolsters investor confidence in our 
financial markets and better protects companies from problematic 
auditors. I hope our colleagues will join Senator Grassley and me in 
supporting this legislation to enhance transparency in the PCAOB's 
enforcement process.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Menendez):
  S. 2022. A bill to enable States to better provide access to whole 
genome sequencing clinical services for certain undiagnosed children 
under the Medicaid program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Ending 
the Diagnostic Odyssey Act.'' This legislation gives States the option 
of providing whole genome sequencing (WGS) clinical services through 
edicaid for children with a disease that is suspected to have a genetic 
cause, at an enhanced Federal matching rate for three years. I am 
pleased to be joined by Senators Kelly and Menendez.
  Children with rare diseases will spend on average five to seven years 
on a diagnostic odyssey, and 30 percent of

[[Page S4047]]

those children will not survive beyond the age of five years old. The 
average patient sees seven different physicians in that time. The wait 
to find a cause--never mind a cure--can be excruciating. Parents try to 
project a calm and reassuring presence for their child while facing a 
whirlwind of doctor appointments, hospital visits, and unanswered 
questions.
  Undeniably, we are making progress in both accelerating research 
funding for rare diseases as well as in the development of diagnostics. 
In 2014, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) launched a program 
called the Undiagnosed Disease Network (UDN). In its first 20 months, 
the UDN accepted 601 participants undiagnosed by traditional medical 
practices. Of those who completed their UDN evaluation during this 
time, 35% were given a diagnosis. Many of these diagnoses were rare 
genetic diseases including 31 previously unknown syndromes.
  In May 2019, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. 
Francis Collins, wrote a blog post on how whole genome sequencing--
combined with artificial intelligence (AI)--can now be used to diagnose 
genetic diseases in seriously ill babies in fewer than 24 hours. Dr. 
Collins writes ``I would submit that there is no other technology in 
the history of planet Earth that has experienced this degree of 
progress in speed and affordability.''
  For parents of children with an undiagnosed illness, answers cannot 
come soon enough. There are approximately 7,000 rare diseases known 
today. Approximately 80 percent of rare diseases are genetic, and about 
one-half of all rare diseases affect children. For example, Alstrom 
syndrome is an extremely rare and complex genetic disorder. 
Approximately 1200 affected individuals have been identified worldwide, 
which makes a obtaining a correct diagnosis challenging. 
Characteristics of Alstrom syndrome include vision disturbances, 
sensorineural hearing impairment, cardiomyopathy, obesity, kidney 
dysfunction, and diabetes. Robin Marshall, Executive Director of the 
Alstrom Syndrome International, located in Mount Desert Island, Maine, 
has said that ``Whole Genome Sequencing has changed the lives of those 
we represent by enabling earlier and more accurate diagnosis, fostering 
more timely and appropriate medical care, and unlocking a host of 
social services to combat the educational and psycho-social 
complications that our children confront.''
  By giving states an incentive to provide whole genome sequencing for 
eligible children through Medicaid, my legislation will ensure that 
more children and their families can obtain the right diagnosis and 
treatment from the start. The ``Ending the Diagnostic Odyssey Act'' has 
the support of more than one hundred patient advocacy organizations, 
including Alstrom Syndrome International, the Genetic Alliance, the 
Personalized Medicine Coalition, and many others. I urge my colleagues 
to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Moran, Mrs. 
        Blackburn, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Schatz):
  S. 2024. A bill to require that internet platforms give users the 
option to engage with a platform without being manipulated by 
algorithms driven by user-specific data; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2024

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Filter Bubble Transparency 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Algorithmic ranking system.--The term ``algorithmic 
     ranking system'' means a computational process, including one 
     derived from algorithmic decision-making, machine learning, 
     statistical analysis, or other data processing or artificial 
     intelligence techniques, used to determine the order or 
     manner that a set of information is provided to a user on a 
     covered internet platform, including the ranking of search 
     results, the provision of content recommendations, the 
     display of social media posts, or any other method of 
     automated content selection.
       (2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Trade Commission.
       (3) Connected device.--The term ``connected device'' means 
     a physical object that--
       (A) is capable of connecting to the internet, either 
     directly or indirectly through a network, to communicate 
     information at the direction of an individual; and
       (B) has computer processing capabilities for collecting, 
     sending, receiving, or analyzing data.
       (4) Covered internet platform.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``covered internet platform'' 
     means any public-facing website, internet application, or 
     mobile application, including a social network site, video 
     sharing service, search engine, or content aggregation 
     service.
       (B) Exclusions.--Such term shall not include a platform 
     that--
       (i) is wholly owned, controlled, and operated by a person 
     that--

       (I) for the most recent 6-month period, did not employ more 
     than 500 employees;
       (II) for the most recent 3-year period, averaged less than 
     $50,000,000 in annual gross receipts; and
       (III) collects or processes on an annual basis the personal 
     data of less than 1,000,000 individuals; or

       (ii) is operated for the sole purpose of conducting 
     research that is not made for profit either directly or 
     indirectly.
       (5) Input-transparent algorithm.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``input-transparent algorithm'' 
     means an algorithmic ranking system that does not use the 
     user-specific data of a user to determine the order or manner 
     that information is furnished to such user on a covered 
     internet platform, unless the user-specific data is expressly 
     provided to the platform by the user for such purpose.
       (B) Inclusion of age-appropriate content filters.--Such 
     term shall include an algorithmic ranking system that uses 
     user-specific data to determine whether a user is old enough 
     to access age-restricted content on a covered internet 
     platform, provided that the system otherwise meets the 
     requirements of subparagraph (A).
       (C) Data provided for express purpose of interaction with 
     platform.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), user-specific 
     data that is provided by a user for the express purpose of 
     determining the order or manner that information is furnished 
     to a user on a covered internet platform--
       (i) shall include user-supplied search terms, filters, 
     speech patterns (if provided for the purpose of enabling the 
     platform to accept spoken input or selecting the language in 
     which the user interacts with the platform), saved 
     preferences, and the user's current geographical location;
       (ii) shall include data supplied to the platform by the 
     user that expresses the user's desire that information be 
     furnished to them, such as the social media profiles the user 
     follows, the video channels the user subscribes to, or other 
     sources of content on the platform the user follows;
       (iii) shall not include the history of the user's connected 
     device, including the user's history of web searches and 
     browsing, geographical locations, physical activity, device 
     interaction, and financial transactions; and
       (iv) shall not include inferences about the user or the 
     user's connected device, without regard to whether such 
     inferences are based on data described in clause (i).
       (6) Opaque algorithm.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``opaque algorithm'' means an 
     algorithmic ranking system that determines the order or 
     manner that information is furnished to a user on a covered 
     internet platform based, in whole or part, on user-specific 
     data that was not expressly provided by the user to the 
     platform for such purpose.
       (B) Exception for age-appropriate content filters.--Such 
     term shall not include an algorithmic ranking system used by 
     a covered internet platform if--
       (i) the only user-specific data (including inferences about 
     the user) that the system uses is information relating to the 
     age of the user; and
       (ii) such information is only used to restrict a user's 
     access to content on the basis that the individual is not old 
     enough to access such content.
       (7) Search syndication contract; upstream provider; 
     downstream provider.--
       (A) Search syndication contract.--The term ``search 
     syndication contract'' means a contract or subcontract for 
     the sale, license, or other right to access an index of web 
     pages on the internet for the purpose of operating an 
     internet search engine.
       (B) Upstream provider.--The term ``upstream provider'' 
     means, with respect to a search syndication contract, the 
     person that grants access to an index of web pages on the 
     internet to a downstream provider under the contract.
       (C) Downstream provider.--The term ``downstream provider'' 
     means, with respect to a search syndication contract, the 
     person that receives access to an index of web pages on the 
     internet from an upstream provider under such contract.
       (8) User-specific data.--The term ``user-specific data'' 
     means information relating to an individual or a specific 
     connected device that would not necessarily be true of every 
     individual or device.

[[Page S4048]]

  


     SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW USERS TO SEE UNMANIPULATED 
                   CONTENT ON INTERNET PLATFORMS.

       (a) In General.--Beginning on the date that is 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, it shall be unlawful--
       (1) for any person to operate a covered internet platform 
     that uses an opaque algorithm unless the person complies with 
     the requirements of subsection (b); or
       (2) for any upstream provider to grant access to an index 
     of web pages on the internet under a search syndication 
     contract that does not comply with the requirements of 
     subsection (c).
       (b) Opaque Algorithm Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--The requirements of this subsection with 
     respect to a person that operates a covered internet platform 
     that uses an opaque algorithm are the following:
       (A) The person provides notice to users of the platform 
     that the platform uses an opaque algorithm that makes 
     inferences based on user-specific data to select the content 
     the user sees. Such notice shall be presented in a clear, 
     conspicuous manner on the platform whenever the user 
     interacts with an opaque algorithm for the first time, and 
     may be a one-time notice that can be dismissed by the user.
       (B) The person makes available a version of the platform 
     that uses an input-transparent algorithm and enables users to 
     easily switch between the version of the platform that uses 
     an opaque algorithm and the version of the platform that uses 
     the input-transparent algorithm by selecting a prominently 
     placed icon, which shall be displayed wherever the user 
     interacts with an opaque algorithm.
       (2) Nonapplication to certain downstream providers.--
     Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to an internet 
     search engine if--
       (A) the search engine is operated by a downstream provider 
     with fewer than 1,000 employees; and
       (B) the search engine uses an index of web pages on the 
     internet to which such provider received access under a 
     search syndication contract.
       (c) Search Syndication Contract Requirement.--The 
     requirements of this subsection with respect to a search 
     syndication contract are that--
       (1) as part of the contract, the upstream provider makes 
     available to the downstream provider the same input-
     transparent algorithm used by the upstream provider for 
     purposes of complying with subsection (b)(1)(B); and
       (2) the upstream provider does not impose any additional 
     costs, degraded quality, reduced speed, or other constraint 
     on the functioning of such algorithm when used by the 
     downstream provider to operate an internet search engine 
     relative to the performance of such algorithm when used by 
     the upstream provider to operate an internet search engine.

     SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT BY FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

       (a) Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices.--A violation of 
     this Act by an operator of a covered internet platform shall 
     be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or 
     deceptive act or practice prescribed under section 
     18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 
     57a(a)(1)(B)).
       (b) Powers of Commission.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), the 
     Federal Trade Commission shall enforce this Act in the same 
     manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, 
     powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and 
     provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 
     et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this Act.
       (2) Privileges and immunities.--Except as provided in 
     paragraph (3), any person who violates this Act shall be 
     subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and 
     immunities provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 
     U.S.C. 41 et seq.).
       (3) Common carriers and nonprofit organizations.--
     Notwithstanding section 4, 5(a)(2), or 6 of the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 44, 45(a)(2), 46) or any 
     jurisdictional limitation of the Commission, the Commission 
     shall also enforce this Act, in the same manner provided in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) of this paragraph, with respect to--
       (A) common carriers subject to the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) and Acts amendatory thereof and 
     supplementary thereto; and
       (B) organizations not organized to carry on business for 
     their own profit or that of their members.
       (4) Authority preserved.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to limit the authority of the Commission under any 
     other provision of law.

                          ____________________