[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 191 (Thursday, December 8, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7047-S7049]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the nomination.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Tamika 
R. Montgomery-Reeves, of Delaware, to be United States Circuit Judge 
for the Third Circuit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2527

  Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, in the last week, new details have come 
to light regarding Twitter's top executives' past collusion with 
political figures to censor speech that they did not want the American 
people to see. This problem is not limited to Twitter, but this news 
underscores the problem and the need for congressional action to 
protect the rights of the American people. Americans deserve to know 
when their government and Big Tech platforms are trying to manipulate 
what they can say or what they can read.
  Recently published emails among Twitter executives reveal the extent 
to which the company worked to prevent Americans from seeing a New York 
Post story, and this was just weeks before the election. The extent of 
the suppression was breathtaking. Indeed, the Twitter executives locked 
the Twitter account of the White House Press Secretary who simply 
mentioned a story that was published in an established American 
newspaper with one of the largest circulations in the country. Facebook 
admits that it likewise limited the spread of this story based on a 
general warning from the FBI about ``propaganda.''
  Evidence has also emerged that in 2020, Biden and Democrat campaign 
officials were going so far as to send lists of tweets for their 
corporate allies to remove--requests that Twitter granted.
  This censorship activity has carried over into the Biden 
administration. In 2021, then-Press Secretary Jen Psaki stated that the 
government is ``in regular touch with social media platforms'' and 
``flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread [what she called] 
`disinformation'.''
  For example, a Facebook official emailed Surgeon General Vivek Murthy 
stating:

       I know our teams met today to better understand the scope 
     of what the White House expects from us on ``misinformation'' 
     going forward.

  A Facebook employee later told the HHS Department that a number of 
posts had been deleted.
  In addition to regularly flagging posts for Twitter and Facebook to 
take down, the CDC proposed setting up a monthly ``misinformation 
meeting'' with Facebook in order to censor American speech.
  Additional Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits have also 
revealed improper coordination between

[[Page S7048]]

government Agencies and social media companies to restrict speech here 
in America.
  Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, disclosed that it 
had communicated with more than 30 Federal officials about content 
moderation on its platform, including senior employees at the FDA, U.S. 
Election Assistance Commission, and the White House. YouTube, which is 
owned by Google, disclosed that it had such communications with 11 
Federal officials.
  The disturbing truth is that when the Biden administration officials 
don't like what Americans are saying, they simply reach out to their 
allies at unaccountable big tech companies to silence it.
  Government using its power to coerce censorship of disfavored 
information is what the Chinese Communist Party or what the North 
Korean regime might do. It is not only fundamentally un-American, but 
often, it is unconstitutional. Government cannot use Big Tech as a tool 
to end-run the First Amendment.
  The American people deserve to know when their government, which is 
supposed to work for them, is using Big Tech to censor their speech or 
manipulate the information they see. I introduced legislation in July 
of 2021 to require this transparency. Yet the Senate has failed to act 
on it.
  The Disclose Government Censorship Act would require that government 
officials publicly disclose communications with Big Tech regarding 
their actions to restrict speech--actions that would plainly violate 
the First Amendment if the government did it itself. The act contains 
appropriate exceptions to protect legitimate law enforcement or 
national security activity.
  It would also require a cooling-off period to address the revolving 
door that occurs between government and Big Tech. This Washington 
revolving door fuels politically driven censorship, as evidenced by the 
fact that the former FBI general counsel who resigned because of the 
Steele dossier scandal was then hired by Twitter and, unbelievably, was 
at the center of the decision to suppress the New York Post story in 
2020.
  Our Nation was founded on the ideal that protecting citizens' speech 
from government censorship--under the First Amendment--would protect 
the people's right to govern themselves by preventing the government 
from controlling information and ideas. Americans deserve to know when 
their government is covertly trying to accomplish what the First 
Amendment prohibits.
  Now, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged 
from further consideration of S. 2527 and that the Senate proceed to 
its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered 
read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I certainly 
fully appreciate Senator Hagerty's interest in protecting the First 
Amendment and ensuring that legitimate speech is not unduly or unfairly 
restricted. I am also committed to holding big tech companies 
accountable. I held a series of bipartisan oversight hearings on social 
media this Congress, including bringing top executives in to testify 
and to answer tough questions.
  The legislation, though, we are discussing today has not been 
considered by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. 
I certainly look forward to working with my colleague to explore these 
issues more fully, but given this bill has not been marked up by the 
committee, I object.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, my Democratic colleague is objecting to 
legislation that simply allows Americans to see when the government is 
trying to censor them.
  My colleague states that his objection is largely on procedural 
grounds, and he has concerns that my bill hasn't been marked up in 
committee, but the committee to which this bill was referred has had 
over a year to review the legislation, and no progress has been made.
  I would ask that my colleague commit to working with me on my 
legislation to address this important First Amendment issue in the next 
Congress. This problem is simply too significant to ignore. Our 
government works for the American people. To ensure this continues, the 
First Amendment prohibits the government from controlling what 
Americans say or read. But now government is using Big Tech to 
accomplish that censorship. Without disclosure of such communications, 
Americans' free speech rights become a dead letter because there is no 
way to address improper government efforts to ban speech.
  My legislation would preserve these rights by allowing Americans to 
see when government is trying to silence them. This is a basic element 
of self-government.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4431

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Pregnant 
Workers Fairness Act, which is a bill I first introduced in 2012 with 
Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire.
  Senator Cassidy from Louisiana has worked hard for years with me and 
with others to get this bill passed. I want to thank Senator Cassidy, 
as well as the chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 
Committee, Senator Murray; Ranking Member Burr of that same committee; 
and Majority Leader Schumer and others for all the work they have done 
to help us pass this bill.
  This is a commonsense bill that has broad bipartisan, bicameral 
support. Everyone from the ACLU to the U.S. Conference of Catholic 
Bishops, to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports this legislation. 
These organizations didn't merely endorse the bill after reviewing it; 
they were actively involved in shaping the legislative text and finding 
agreement on the text that we are attempting to vote on, and they 
remain supportive today.
  The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act simply closes a loophole in the 
1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act to allow pregnant workers to request 
reasonable accommodations--``reasonable accommodations''; you are going 
to hear that phrase a lot today--so that that worker can continue 
working safely during their pregnancy and upon returning to work after 
childbirth.
  I am going to be coming back to that phrase in a moment, ``reasonable 
accommodations,'' but I want to cite just two examples among many. Just 
one from Pennsylvania--Janasia, a teaching assistant working at a 
childcare facility. She is from Bucks County, PA, in suburban 
Philadelphia. She suffered a miscarriage due to an infection during a 
previous pregnancy. When she got pregnant again, she asked for extra 
bathroom breaks, which were necessary to prevent contracting another 
infection. She was made to wait over an hour just to use the bathroom. 
Later that day, Janasia was fired.
  This is just one example of a pregnant worker asking for a simple--
simple--commonsense accommodation and being denied that accommodation.
  What are other types of reasonable accommodations that pregnant 
workers might request? Light duty is a common example. Pregnant people 
are routinely advised by their doctors to limit how much they lift, 
whether it is 20 pounds or 25 pounds or 30 pounds.
  Peggy Young was a UPS driver who requested light duty when she was 
pregnant. Other workers had received light duty, but she was denied 
because there was no requirement under the 1978 Pregnancy 
Discrimination Act to provide reasonable accommodations. That is the 
loophole we are trying to fix. Peggy Young was forced onto unpaid leave 
and eventually took her case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Other common accommodations a pregnant worker might request are 
stools or water bottles. Cashiers and other retail workers are often 
denied these reasonable accommodations that can help them maintain a 
healthy pregnancy.
  There have also been multiple cases where pregnant workers have been 
demoted or forced into lower paying jobs because their employer refused 
to provide uniforms that can accommodate

[[Page S7049]]

the worker's pregnancy even though the pregnancy did not affect the 
worker's ability to perform essential job functions.
  These are all examples of simple changes employers can provide to a 
pregnant worker's job duties or requirements that would not 
substantially inconvenience the employer, while allowing pregnant 
workers to continue working through their pregnancies. Yet, all too 
often, pregnant workers are being denied these reasonable 
accommodations, leading to impossible choices for these workers.
  Keep working in an unsafe environment. Is that a good choice? Taking 
leave early and running out before the baby is born? Or, No. 3, be let 
go or forced to quit and face the stress and financial strain that 
comes with losing their job.
  There is no need for this to happen. The Pregnant Workers Fairness 
Act sets up a simple framework that is easily understood and utilized 
by both employers and employees.
  Under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a pregnant employee may 
request reasonable accommodations from their employer. The worker and 
the employer will then engage in an interactive process to determine 
how the employer can provide these reasonable accommodations to the 
worker. This protects both parties. The worker may not be forced to 
accept accommodations that are not needed and that do not address the 
original concern. The employer cannot be asked to provide an 
accommodation that would cause an undue burden on that employer.

  If this process sounds familiar, that is because we have carefully 
crafted it to closely resemble the process under the Americans with 
Disabilities Act. The ADA is 30 years old--lots of case law in those 
years, testing and probing and examining this reasonable accommodations 
standard. So we have 30 years of evidence that reasonable 
accommodations is a way to protect workers who have a disability in the 
workplace, and it is also a great way to protect a pregnant worker. 
Reasonable accommodations.
  Mr. President, at this time I will yield to my colleague, the Chair 
of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Pensions, and Labor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). The Senator from Washington.