[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 118 (Tuesday, July 11, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2299-S2300]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                      EXECUTIVE SESSION--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 538

  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, many Americans remember waking up on 
Saturday morning to watch their favorite cartoons, including shows like 
``The Jetsons.'' As I look at the Senate pages who are here, I suspect 
none of them have any memory of ``The Jetsons.'' For those who are 
under 40 in the Chamber or who are watching at home, ``The Jetsons'' 
was a futuristic cartoon that was set in the year 2062, and it depicted 
a family from the future who had fun, imaginative technologies, like 
jet packs and holograms and video calls and robot vacuums and 
smartwatches and flying cars. While we are still waiting to see those 
flying cars in the air, we already have a lot of ``The Jetsons' '' 
technology available to us now--in many cases, even better than what 
was depicted in the cartoon show.
  Today, internet-connected smart devices are commonly used in American 
households. Light bulbs, mirrors, air fryers, coffee makers, trash 
cans, kitchen faucets, refrigerators, and more are all becoming smart, 
and we are able to control them with our phones or voice commands. A 
lot of that is really cool. It is expected that, in a few years, nearly 
70 percent of American households--more than 80 million households--
will own at least one smart home product. This is, by and large, a good 
thing, as smart devices can help us improve our quality of life and 
complete daily tasks more easily.
  But, with any technological advancement, there can be tradeoffs, and 
for smart devices, one of the potential tradeoffs is our privacy. In 
Texas, we have become very aware of that cost. In the past few years, 
smart thermostats have allowed electric companies to control the 
temperature in your own home, from afar, in the name of conserving 
energy.
  Furthermore, a lot of Americans don't realize or expect that the 
growing number of smart household devices and appliances have cameras 
on them and microphones that can surreptitiously record families and 
transmit data. In other words, when you are buying a new refrigerator, 
you don't expect your fridge to record you or listen to you or to spy 
on you without your knowledge. And, while some manufacturers have 
responsibly taken steps to more clearly label their products and to let 
consumers know they contain listening devices or cameras, others have 
not.
  So I have introduced bipartisan legislation, which I authored 
alongside Senator Cantwell of Washington, a Democrat and the chairman 
of the Commerce Committee. I am the ranking member of the Commerce 
Committee. Our bipartisan legislation would simply ensure that this 
information is clearly communicated to consumers so that you are 
informed before you buy a product that is going to photograph you or 
film you or record you, so that it doesn't happen against your wishes 
and without your knowledge.
  Now, I expect, in a minute, we are going to hear opposition to my 
bill--opposition focused on the proposition that any mandate put on a 
private company is somehow a burden. And it is a mandate to require 
your refrigerator manufacturer to tell you if your fridge is spying on 
you. Now, I am sympathetic to the problem that there are too many 
mandates from government and that many of the mandates are unnecessary 
and burdensome and costly, but requiring a manufacturer to tell you if 
they are spying on you does not fall into that category.
  And I have to say, in assessing the minimal burden--the disclosure 
burden--against the harm, I fall down on the side of individual 
liberty. I fall down on the side of privacy. I don't think the American 
people want their air fryer spying on them, and, at a minimum, they 
have the right to know if their air fryer is spying on them.
  Now, I would note that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
agree. The Presiding Officer today serves on the Commerce Committee. 
This legislation passed the Commerce Committee by voice vote, with 
bipartisan support from both sides of the aisle. This should be a 
simple, easy, pro-privacy step to protect consumers.
  For that reason, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be 
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 538 and that the Senate 
proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the Cruz-Cantwell 
substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the 
bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that 
the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table 
with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, far too 
often, Congress operates under the delusion that we know what is best 
for the American consumer. Instead of allowing market participants to 
determine the information they want, we seek to manipulate the free 
market to impose our preferences on private actors.

[[Page S2300]]

  As I am sure my colleague will readily agree, the Federal Government 
is far too large in size and scope. In this case, the additional 
Federal regulation and the associated potential penalties and costs are 
not appropriate. This is not a case of industry committing fraud or 
making willful misrepresentations about their products. This bill 
simply mandates what manufacturers must tell consumers because it 
assumes that consumers are not sophisticated enough to make the 
judgment themselves.
  If American consumers want more information about a product, they can 
be sure they will make it known. If a manufacturer wants to sell more 
of their products, you can be sure they will listen to the consumers. 
Congress doesn't need to insert itself into every equation.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is noted.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I have listened to the objections of my 
friend from Kentucky, and I use that word as many do on this floor, 
although he is not listening to my response, but that is his choice.
  The first time I ever spoke on the floor was in support of Senator 
Paul's filibuster in 2013. Senator Paul is fond of telling his 
constituents that he is a libertarian, that he defends privacy. I am 
not quite a libertarian. I am a conservative, but I have strong 
libertarian leanings. And I want to note the irony that Senator Paul, 
who has devoted his entire public career to defending liberty and 
defending privacy, just objected to protecting the privacy of over 300 
million Americans. He just objected to Americans knowing whether they 
are being spied on at home. I have to admit it is truly flabbergasting.
  I would like to invite my colleague Senator Paul to join me in front 
of a gathering of libertarians, and let's discuss with libertarians 
which side of the aisle you want to be on. Do you want to be on the 
side of Big Business' surreptitiously tape-recording, photographing, 
and videotaping you in your home or in your bedroom without your 
knowing about it or is a mild and nominal disclosure requirement simply 
saying, ``If you are going to tape-record someone or videotape them in 
their house, you have got to tell them,'' a justifiable burden?
  I hope that, in time, reason will prevail, because we ought to be 
protecting privacy. This is a bill whereby, if we vote on it on the 
Senate floor, I am confident the vote would be 99 to 1. I am confident 
that every Senator except the Senator who just objected would support 
this bill. Protecting people's privacy is a good idea, and I hope the 
Senate can get there as a body.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.