[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 185 (Thursday, October 21, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7138-S7140]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Voting Rights

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, yesterday, the U.S. Senate was once again 
presented with the opportunity to protect the will and the voices of 
the American people. We had a chance to protect the sanctity of our 
electoral processes and to preserve our democracy. We had a chance to 
extend voting rights. But yesterday, for the second time this year, 
Republicans unanimously chose obstruction over debate, suppression over 
representation.
  All Democrats agree: The Freedom to Vote Act is commonsense 
legislation. It would enhance access to the ballot for all Americans--a 
right enshrined in our Constitution. It would enact badly needed 
election integrity reforms and eliminate emerging threats to our 
democracy. The Freedom to Vote Act would put in place key voter 
protections, such as automatic voter registration, making election day 
a holiday, and uniform early voting. It includes provisions that are 
broadly popular with the American people: ending partisan 
gerrymandering and removing special interest money from our politics.
  Every single Democrat voted for this bill. Democrats are united 
behind voting rights. Yesterday, we came to the floor together, ready 
to start the debate.
  My Republican colleagues have said that Democrats are attempting to 
frame voting restrictions as voter suppression, implying that voter 
suppression is some figment of our imagination, a figment of the 
imagination of those across the country who are suffering from these 
practices. Well, to my Republican colleagues, look around. Nineteen 
States have passed 33 new laws this year that make it harder to 
vote. We know that these laws disproportionately disenfranchise Black 
voters, Brown voters, immigrant voters; voters like a mother in 
Georgia, who can't vote because she can't take time off from the job 
she works to cover the bills in the midst of a pandemic; or the poll 
worker in Arizona, who was arrested--arrested--for giving a bottle of 
water to a woman waiting in extreme heat to vote; or the person in 
Texas, who couldn't vote because he didn't have a ride to the polls.

  Stories like these are not exaggerations. They are facts, and they 
are unconscionable facts. If Congress does not step up to the plate on 
voting rights, then we are signaling to every person in this country 
that their voice does not matter. We are telling them that we are a 
country that cares about representation for some but not for all in our 
country.
  Ensuring voting rights is how we show, no matter a person's 
background or race or hometown or economic status, that their voice can 
be heard and represented. Not just the wealthy, not just big 
corporations, not just White Americans--everybody in our country is 
fully protected so that they can vote, so they can express that central 
right in our country.
  Inaction on voting rights is not an option. Voting rights are the 
people's power, and the people's power is how we unlock opportunity, 
representation, and justice for everyone in our Nation. Ensuring the 
right to vote is how we restore faith in our democracy and how we turn 
popular opinion into legislative action here on the floor of the 
Senate.
  This is how we take action to save our planet from the existential 
threat of the climate crisis that is impacting us right now. This is 
how we take action to respond to the ongoing COVID-

[[Page S7139]]

19 pandemic. This is how we take action to address racial injustice 
across our country. This is how we create the future for our children 
that we want to see for them.
  Republican obstruction does not mean this fight is over. Next week, 
the Senate will prepare for a vote on the John Lewis Voting Rights 
Advancement Act, and here is how we can get this done: abolish the 
filibuster. Abolish the filibuster. We must abolish the filibuster so 
that Democrats who were elected into the majority can begin to operate 
like a majority.
  The filibuster is yet another Jim Crow-era relic that silences the 
voices of disenfranchised people in our country, and this antiquated, 
parliamentary rule is halting progress in our country.
  As legislators, our job is to both listen to the people of this 
country and act on what we have heard from our country. Democrats have 
listened, and we are working toward action.
  So, to my Republican colleagues, for the sake of your constituents, I 
urge you to join us in taking action.
  If they do not, then, in the face of continued obstruction, we must 
abolish the filibuster and pass voting rights legislation.
  The Republicans can no longer be allowed to stand behind the 
filibuster--a Jim Crow-era policy, a set of rules that is used on the 
floor of the Senate to actually deny progress for every single part of 
our society. The time has passed. These rules are antiquated. They are 
used in a discriminatory way to deliberately minimize the political 
power of those who are most vulnerable, and it must end. We must 
abolish the filibuster.
  The message we are receiving from the Republican leadership is that 
they are going to stand fast as a party, and that their political 
strategy is, in fact, disenfranchisement. It is, in fact, obstructing 
our ability to hear every single voice in our country.
  So this is the time. This is the body that must act. We have to 
change these rules. These rules do not work for everyone. We know that 
this is our constitutional time.
  Back when the first Constitution was being drafted, they excluded 
women, and they excluded the slave population, the Black population, 
from being able to vote. It was a deliberate plan that had to be 
rectified. It was rectified by the suffrage movement for women, and it 
was rectified by the Civil War so that former slaves would be given the 
right to vote.
  Well, this is our time. We see this moment for us to act on the 
filibuster. In the same way that the Civil War was the impediment, it 
has to be removed because we can see who is harmed if it is not.
  So I call upon everyone to begin this action to repeal the filibuster 
to ensure that everyone's voice is heard in our country.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for this opportunity.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


Filter Bubble Transparency Act and Platform Accountability and Consumer 
                            Transparency Act

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, social media has become a big part of a lot 
of Americans' lives: TikTok, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram.
  People turn to social media for connection, for entertainment, to 
stay on top of the news, for pictures of the grandkids, for workout 
routines, and new recipes.
  Social media offers a lot of benefits and opportunities, but it is 
becoming ever more clear that social media has a darker side as well. 
Social media use can have a negative effect on mental health. It can 
foster negative and divisive engagement and serve as an outlet for 
illegal activity, from child pornography to human trafficking. It can 
have a particularly detrimental effect on the still-developing psyches 
of teenagers.
  The Wall Street Journal recently published a series of disturbing 
reports based on the information of a Facebook whistleblower provided 
that highlighted everything from the use of Facebook for criminal 
activity in developing countries to the company's own research showing 
the negative impact Instagram can have on teenager girls.
  Two weeks ago, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing where we 
heard firsthand from the Facebook whistleblower about the concerns that 
led her to come forward. And next week, the Commerce Committee will be 
holding a hearing with witnesses from Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube, 
examining how these companies treat younger users.
  A recent Wall Street Journal investigation into TikTok revealed how 
easy it is for younger users to be bombarded with wildly inappropriate 
content, from videos promoting drug use to disturbing sexual content.
  One major problem with social media that came through, once again, in 
the recent Commerce hearing and in the Wall Street Journal's recent 
revelations is social media platforms' use of algorithms to shape 
users' experiences.
  Gone are the days when you logged into Facebook and just consumed 
content that had been posted chronologically since your previous login. 
Now Facebook and other social media platforms use algorithms to shape 
your news feed and suggestions for additional content, emphasizing 
posts the platforms think you will be interested in and de-emphasizing 
other posts.
  Now, algorithms can be useful, of course. If you are looking for 
YouTube videos on how to build a bookshelf, you will probably 
appreciate it if YouTube suggests additional videos on how to build a 
bookshelf rather than videos on how to roast a turkey or sink the 
perfect jump shot.
  But algorithms have a problematic aspect as well. For starters, many 
people aren't aware just how much their experiences on these platforms 
are being manipulated and the negative emotional effects that that 
manipulation can have.
  Disclosure on these platforms can be confusing or nonexistent, so 
individuals can be largely unaware that the immense amount of personal 
data that social media platforms collect is being used to decide what 
posts they are being shown, what ads they are being offered, and more.
  Individuals end up being trapped in what has been termed the ``filter 
bubble''--their own world of filtered search results and tailored 
content. This can lead to everything from political polarization, as 
users are presented with a narrow, one-sided view of current affairs, 
to addictive behavior, as the platform doubles down on troubling 
content that users have shown an interest in.
  As the Wall Street Journal's recent articles on Facebook and TikTok 
demonstrate, the filter bubble can be particularly troubling in the 
case of younger social media users who may watch an inappropriate video 
and soon find that their feed is filled with similar material. In many 
ways, the filter bubble can and does shape a user's choices and 
behavior.
  As the former Commerce Committee chairman and current ranking member 
of the Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and Broadband, I 
have been following these issues for a while and have developed two 
bipartisan bills--the Filter Bubble Transparency Act and the PACT Act--
that I think would go a long way toward addressing the problems posed 
by social media platforms.
  My Filter Bubble Transparency Act, which is cosponsored by Senators 
Blumenthal and Blackburn, among others, would allow social media users 
to opt out of the filter bubble. In other words, it would allow them to 
opt out of the filtered experience tailored for them by opaque 
algorithms and, instead, see an unfiltered social media feed or search 
results that aren't based on the vast amount of information a platform 
has on them.
  Facebook, for example, would be required to provide a clear 
notification to users that their content is being shaped by algorithms. 
Then Facebook would be required to provide users with an easily 
accessible option to see a chronological news feed instead of a news 
feed powered by opaque algorithms that emphasize the posts that 
Facebook wants you to see.
  My Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act--or the PACT 
Act--which I introduced with Senator Schatz, would also increase social 
media transparency. It would require sites to provide an easily 
digestible disclosure of their content moderation practices for users, 
and it would address censorship concerns by requiring sites to explain 
their decisions to remove material to consumers.

[[Page S7140]]

  Until relatively recently, sites like Facebook and Twitter would 
remove a user's post without explanation and without an appeals 
process. Even as platforms start to shape up their act with regard to 
transparency and due process, it is still hard for users to get good 
information about how content is being moderated.
  Under the PACT Act, if a site chooses to remove your post, it has to 
tell you why it decided to remove your post and explain how your post 
violated the site's terms of use. Then it has to provide a way for you 
to appeal that decision. The PACT Act would also explore the viability 
of a Federal program for Big Tech employees to blow the whistle on 
wrongdoing inside the companies where they work.
  We learned a lot from Frances Haugen, the Facebook whistleblower who 
spoke to the Commerce Committee 2 weeks ago, and I believe that we 
should encourage employees in the tech sector to speak up about 
questionable practices of Big Tech companies so that we can, among 
other things, ensure Americans are fully aware of how social media 
platforms are making use of artificial intelligence and individuals' 
personal data to keep them hooked on their platforms.
  As I said earlier, social media offers a lot of benefits--I think we 
all acknowledge that--but with the ever-increasing role that it plays 
in Americans' lives, it is essential that consumers understand exactly 
how social media platforms are using their information and shaping the 
news that they see and the content that they interact with.
  And I am hopeful that the recent troubling revelations about Facebook 
and TikTok published by the Wall Street Journal will create an impetus 
for bipartisan action on social media transparency.
  I am grateful to have bipartisan cosponsors for both the Filter 
Bubble Transparency Act and the PACT Act, and I look forward to working 
with my cosponsors to get these bills passed in the near future.
  Big Tech has operated in the dark for too long. It is time to shed 
some light on content moderation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.