[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 83 (Wednesday, May 17, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1698-S1701]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

   DISAPPROVING OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 
    SECURITY RELATING TO ``PUBLIC CHARGE GROUND OF INADMISSIBILITY''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume legislative session and proceed to the consideration of S.J. 
Res. 18, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 18) disapproving of the rule 
     submitted by the Department of Homeland Security relating to 
     ``Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                              Social Media

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 10 days ago, America lost a visionary 
public official, and I lost a friend. He was 97 years old. His name was 
Newt Minow.
  He was 35 years old in the year 1961 when President John Kennedy 
tapped him to chair the Federal Communications Commission. At the time, 
Americans were involved in big change--moving from their radios to this 
new thing called television.
  In his maiden speech as FCC Commissioner, Newt Minow famously 
described much of commercial television as a ``vast wasteland.'' He was 
especially concerned about the effects of endless commercials and 
violent cartoons and other programs on the minds of our children. He 
said the public airwaves should serve the public interest and that the 
FCC should use its power to ensure that this emerging new technology of 
television met that standard.
  Fast-forward six decades. Social media now fills the role that 
broadcast TV once did in the lives of our kids. Yet Federal laws 
currently allow social media companies to endanger our children with 
near total immunity. Social media companies can and regularly do sell 
children's personal information for profit, allow bullies to hound 
children mercilessly, and allow drug dealers and sexual predators to 
hunt for child victims on their platforms.
  Our laws, as they are currently written--as we have currently written 
them--make it nearly impossible for victims to hold these companies 
accountable. This has to change, and the Senate Judiciary Committee is 
taking bipartisan action to see that it does.
  Virtually every parent I know is concerned about how much time their 
kids spend online, looking at screens, how it is affecting them, and 
the dangers that kids can stumble into. Parents have a right to be 
concerned. Look around the next time you are in a grocery store or in a 
mall or at a family restaurant. You will see kids who are transfixed by 
smartphones and tablets. I have seen this happen. I will bet the 
Presiding Officer has seen it. Many kids learn how to scroll before 
they learn how to walk.
  I know two children in New York who are quite adept at navigating the 
online world. They are 11 years old. Their

[[Page S1699]]

parents have talked to them about the dangers lurking online. Both 
parents monitor their kids' screen time as much as they can, but they 
still worry that they are missing dangers. I know these children 
because they are my grandchildren. My wife and I visited them recently.
  I sat down with my grandkids, and I asked them: What do you know 
about staying safe online?
  Well, they both assured me they ``knew all about it, Papa.'' They 
knew all the danger signs to steer clear of.
  But we cannot continue to place the responsibility for protecting 
children online entirely on these children, even their parents, and 
even child advocacy groups alone. No matter how concerned and vigilant 
they are, parents stand virtually no chance against social media 
companies that use powerful algorithms to hook kids and make a profit 
off of them but cannot be held accountable in a court of law for the 
harm that their products cause.
  Well, Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee 
want to change that. Over the last 2 weeks, we have voted out of 
committee a package of four bipartisan bills that would require 
Facebook, Snapchat, and other social media companies to adhere to new 
online safety standards for children or pay a price. The price would be 
anything from significant fines to civil judgments to criminal 
prosecutions. I say enough is enough.


                             STOP CSAM Act

  Mr. President, last Thursday, the Judiciary Committee voted 
unanimously to advance a bill I am sponsoring, called the STOP CSAM 
Act. CSAM stands for ``Child Sexual Abuse Material.''
  Before I go any further, I want to say a word about this 23-member 
committee.
  We have some pretty strongly held political opinions among the 
membership of that committee, both on the Democratic side and on the 
Republican side. It is rare, if ever, that we agree on everything, but 
these four bills about social media passed with unanimous rollcalls in 
the Senate Judiciary Committee. Every Democrat and every Republican 
voted for it.
  Sadly, the online spread of violent material is exploding, and it is 
a call to action for us. It is far beyond the ability of victims, of 
child safety organizations, or even of law enforcement to stop it under 
current law. The STOP CSAM Act, which I introduced, would protect 
victims and promote transparency and accountability for social media 
companies.
  Here is how it works: Companies that fail to remove child sexual 
abuse material and related imagery after being notified about them 
would face significant fines, and companies that promote or facilitate 
the online sexual exploitation of children or host or store child 
sexual abuse material could face new civil and even criminal penalties.
  According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children--
the recognized national experts--there are an estimated 84 million 
images of child sexual abuse material on the internet--84 million. That 
figure is increasing exponentially each year. These images are traded, 
sold, and shared online around the world.
  I have spoken before about a young woman called Charlotte. Like many 
naive young people, when Charlotte was 16 years old, she shared 
intimate images of herself with a man she met online whom she thought 
was a friend. That man then posted those images of Charlotte online. 
They have haunted Charlotte ever since--for more than 10 years. She has 
attempted suicide three times. She has lost jobs when those images 
would appear in communities where she was trying to work. The images of 
Charlotte have been shared around the world. She has endured years of 
online harassment and abuse because of it.
  She and her mom and child advocacy groups have asked social media 
companies in dozens of nations to take down the images, with almost no 
luck. Charlotte lost a teaching job she loved because of the images. 
She attempted suicide, as I mentioned. She says she doubts that she 
will ever feel safe.
  Other children and teens have been bullied mercilessly online. Sadly, 
some have taken their own lives to escape the torment. We had a hearing 
at which some of the mothers came in, holding the color photographs of 
their kids, some who were induced to try choking exercises in their 
closets, ultimately taking their own lives by hanging themselves.


                              EARN IT Act

  Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, our committee passed another child online 
safety bill--again, unanimously. It is called the EARN IT Act. It would 
modify section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.
  Here is why we need it: Section 230 currently shields media 
companies, such as Facebook and Snapchat, with very rare exceptions, 
from being held accountable when material that is posted on their 
platforms results in harm to kids and others. It gives social media 
companies a pass and denies their victims their day in court.
  Section 230 was written when Mark Zuckerberg was in the sixth grade, 
long before social media existed. It was passed when internet companies 
were small and struggling. Today, social media companies are some of 
the richest, most powerful companies in the history of the world. Yet 
they still benefit from the shield of section 230 to deny victims their 
day in court.
  The EARN IT Act eliminates immunity and creates accountability. Its 
cosponsors are our colleague Senator Blumenthal, from Connecticut, and 
Senator Graham.
  Big Tech can no longer disregard its role in online child 
exploitation. Many of the rest of our committee members, Democrats and 
Republicans, are cosponsors. I am happy to be one of them.
  We also passed two additional child online safety bills in our 
committee, the SHIELD Act and the Project Safe Childhood Act. Senators 
Klobuchar and Cornyn are the lead sponsors of both bills, and both of 
them have bipartisan sponsorship.
  We can, and we will, balance the need to protect free speech with and 
the need to protect our kids from harm. What we will not do is accept 
the status quo where some social media companies continue to destroy 
lives and make vast fortunes by exploiting a legal loophole that can no 
longer be justified.
  We hope our colleagues will join us in protecting America's children 
and teenagers from online horror.


                              S.J. Res. 18

  Mr. President, we are going to vote on a resolution in a few minutes 
that I would like to speak to. It is called the ``Public Charge Ground 
of Inadmissibility.'' I oppose this resolution, and I urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting against it.
  This resolution aims to overturn a Biden administration regulation on 
the public charge ground of inadmissibility. This regulation provides 
immigrant families--especially those with U.S. citizen children--with 
stability and certainty.
  It does not make a single immigrant eligible for public benefits. 
Instead, it restores and qualifies the longstanding practice that an 
individual is ineligible for a green card if the individual relies on 
public benefits for income.
  Four years ago, the Trump administration upended that definition, 
creating a new, vague test. For the first time, receiving supplemental 
public health benefits like nutritional assistance and Medicaid could 
be considered part of a public charge determination. Most immigrants, 
even those with lawful status, have been ineligible for means-tested 
programs since 1996. Immigrants who apply for these benefits are 
usually doing so to obtain central healthcare or food assistance for a 
U.S. American citizen child.
  In 2016, 5.8 million U.S. citizen children with an immigrant parent 
had Medicaid or CHIP coverage, for example. The Trump administration 
rule forced these parents to make a choice: Deny their kids essential 
services or risk losing their status and being deported.
  When that rule was announced, school districts reported massive drops 
in school lunch enrollment. Healthcare providers also reported pregnant 
women were afraid to receive assistance for fear of losing their status 
or putting at risk the immigration status of a loved one.
  For example, one healthcare center reported that immigrant parents 
here on a student visa were afraid to obtain Medicaid for their 
disabled child. Although the child was a U.S. citizen and it was 
perfectly legal for the child to receive Medicaid, the parents worried 
that they could lose their status and be

[[Page S1700]]

separated from their child if they applied for this assistance.
  A 2021 report found that even after the Trump rule was rescinded, 
nearly 50 percent of Americans with an immigrant family member believed 
that applying for assistance for any family member could cause 
immigration problems.
  The Biden administration tried to resolve this. Their regulation 
makes it clear that an immigrant cannot be eligible for a green card 
simply for receiving healthcare or food assistance for their U.S. 
citizen child. That is why the American Hospital Association, the 
American Academy of Pediatrics, the Illinois Department of Human 
Services, and countless other healthcare organizations support the 
Biden rule. These experts believe that the rule provides clarity and 
certainty to immigrants, as well as medical professionals, ensuring 
that kids get the basic access to food and healthcare they need.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this harmful 
resolution and protecting families and children.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MARSHALL. 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.J. Res. 18

  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I rise in support of our CRA disapproval 
of the Department of Homeland Security's public charge inadmissibility 
rule.
  Last week, I had the honor of leading a trip with several of my 
fellow Senators to Brownsville, TX, to see the border crisis up front 
and firsthand for myself--the border crisis created by Joe Biden--as 
title 42 was coming to an end. We met a lot of people on the trip, and 
I want to share some of their thoughts, some of their concerns.
  We met a young former marine officer who said he felt safer in 
Afghanistan than he did in southern Texas right now.
  Local residents were bracing for the impact, with 170,000 people just 
across the border waiting to come across with the end of title 42. 
Families are gearing up to protect their families against the cartels, 
very specifically.
  We met a fifth-generation rancher who was leaving his family ranch 
and moving his family into town, and even that night, he was teaching 
his wife how to load a 410-gauge shotgun to protect their family.
  We met officers. Many of these officers were multigenerational--their 
fathers, their grandparents had served on the border--and they said it 
was worse than they have ever seen in their lifetime.
  Something new on this trip: We were told that 90 Chinese military-age 
nationalists are entering illegally every day in South Texas.
  As we all know, over 6 million people have entered the country 
illegally since President Biden took office--6 million people. That is 
twice the size of my home State of Kansas. Another 1.5 million people 
have evaded apprehension and entered the country--``got-aways,'' as 
they call them on the border.
  Thousands upon thousands more continue to overwhelm the borders. I 
think we all realize our immigration system is broken, but rather than 
fix the problem, this administration continues to point fingers and 
find ways to ignore or abuse our laws to provide pathways for illegal 
immigrants to come here.
  Many of the people crossing our border will get to roam freely 
throughout our country. They leave our intake facilities with a cell 
phone and a court date, a court date that is 4 to 5 years from the date 
they entered. I think we are all kidding ourselves if we think these 
folks will ever show up for those dates in 5 years. Despite breaking 
our laws, they will be long gone, settled into communities across the 
country. In fact, on our trip, law enforcement officers told me 90 
percent of the migrants are not showing up for these court dates so 
far.
  Sure, they are going to seek citizenship down the road. There is no 
doubt about that. And open border colleagues across the aisle will no 
doubt call for amnesty for all of them. We expect President Biden will 
support that. He has said that as much himself, broadcasting across the 
globe that you can take advantage of the benefits we provide, despite 
breaking our laws.
  I think it is fair to say Americans have the most generous legal 
immigration standards in the world, but we have to draw the line 
somewhere.
  Since the 1800s, our Nation has required foreign nationals seeking 
admission to the United States to show that they can care for 
themselves without becoming a public charge or burdening the taxpayers.
  Most nations require you to have a job before you come into their 
country. We just don't want you to become a public charge if you want 
to become a permanent citizen. Being a public charge is a ground of 
inadmissibility under our immigration laws.
  Let me say that again. Being a public charge is a ground of 
inadmissibility under our immigration laws.
  Congress specifically directed the executive branch to consider 
various factors when allowing people into this great Nation. These 
factors include: age, health, family status, assets, resources, and 
financial status, along with education and skills.
  Indeed, as recently as 1996, Congress clearly declared in a policy 
statement included in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act of 1996 that self-sufficiency is a basic principle 
of U.S. immigration law and should continue to be a governing principle 
in the United States.
  Specifically, the Immigration and Nationality Act makes an alien who 
is an applicant for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status 
inadmissible if he or she is likely at any time to become a public 
charge. The public charge ground of inadmissibility, therefore, applies 
to aliens applying for a visa to come to the United States temporarily 
or permanently for admission or adjust their status to that of a lawful 
permanent resident, with some limited exceptions.
  We need an immigration system that welcomes the best and the 
brightest, but we need to limit the cycle of chain migration. Again, we 
need some type of guardrails. While we open our hearts to asylum 
seekers, we must also build a merit-based immigration system that 
considers that immigrants' potential contributions to our economy, to 
our communities, and our future. We don't want a system that rewards 
idleness and reliance on taxpayer-funded benefits.
  Under the previous administration, the Department of Homeland 
Security issued a rule that would have required immigrants seeking to 
remain in the country to be self-sufficient. But under President Biden, 
the regulations have changed.
  Now, my hope is to override the Biden public charge rule today with a 
vote here in the Senate. The Biden administration's public charge rule 
makes a mockery of the law and the intent of Congress to ensure that 
immigrants are self-sufficient.
  According to an estimate by the Federation of Americans for 
Immigration Reform, at the start of 2023, the net cost of illegal 
immigration for the United States at the Federal, State, and local 
levels was at least $150 billion.
  Again, since the start of 2023, the cost to taxpayers, $150 billion.
  Now, this number is going to increase drastically if this rule 
stands. Our resolution of disapproval would rescind the Biden public 
charge rule and, hopefully, spur this administration to come to the 
table and craft a solution that will ensure the self-sufficiency of 
immigrants and protect American taxpayers.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote to support this CRA of disapproval, 
to introduce some sanity into our immigration system.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled 
vote start immediately.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on passage of the joint resolution.
  Mr. TESTER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page S1701]]

  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  Under the previous order, the joint resolution is considered read a 
third time.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read the third time.


                          Vote on S.J. Res 18

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) and 
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 130 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Vance
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--47

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Coons
     Menendez
     Mullin
  The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 18) was passed, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 18

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the final rule submitted by the Department of 
     Homeland Security relating to ``Public Charge Ground of 
     Inadmissibility'' (87 Fed. Reg. 55472 (September 9, 2022)), 
     and such rule shall have no force or effect.

                          ____________________