[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 120 (Thursday, July 13, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2452-S2453]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1672

  Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, just last week, a Federal judge ruled 
that the First Amendment prohibits the Biden administration from 
colluding with Big Tech to censor Americans' speech. So the court 
ordered Biden administration officials and Agencies not to coordinate 
with Big Tech platforms in order to suppress American speakers and 
Americans' viewpoints that they disagree with.
  This seems obvious. The First Amendment would mean little if 
government simply used Big Tech to get around it. Who disagrees with 
this basic principle that government-directed censorship is un-American 
and unconstitutional? Well, I can tell you who disagrees with that. The 
Biden administration disagrees with it. The Justice Department, almost 
immediately, asked the court of appeals to stay this ruling to allow it 
to continue to censor Americans while it appeals.
  In recent years, increasing evidence has emerged regarding a 
disturbing alliance in which Big Government and Big Tech work together 
to censor speech that they don't want Americans to see nor to hear. 
Published emails among Twitter executives reveal the extent to which 
the company worked to prevent Americans from seeing a New York Post 
news story just weeks before the 2020 election. The extent of the 
suppression was breathtaking. Indeed, the Twitter executives locked the 
Twitter account of the White House Press Secretary simply for 
mentioning this New York Post story.
  Facebook admits that it, likewise, limited the spread of the story 
based on a general warning from the FBI about it being propaganda. This 
is even though the FBI had verified the authenticity of the laptop in 
question.
  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.''
  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, the 
U.S. Election Assistance Commission, and, of course, 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 Biden administration officials 
don't like what Americans are saying, they simply reach out to their 
allies at Big Tech to silence it. Government using its power to coerce 
censorship of disfavored information is what the Chinese Communist 
Party or the North Korean regime would do. It is not only fundamentally 
un-American; most often, it is unconstitutional.
  The other day, a Federal court confirmed that the government cannot 
use Big Tech as a tool to end-run the First Amendment. The judge wrote 
that the case ``arguably involves the most massive attack against free 
speech in United States' history.''
  Americans deserve to know when their government and Big Tech 
platforms are trying to manipulate what they can say or what they can 
read. I introduced legislation last Congress and again this past May to 
require this transparency. The Disclose Government Censorship Act would 
require that government officials publicly disclose communications with 
Big Tech regarding actions to restrict speech. The act contains 
appropriate exceptions to protect legitimate law enforcement or 
national security activity.
  Our Nation was founded on the idea that protecting citizens' speech 
from government censorship under the First Amendment would protect the 
people's right to govern themselves by preventing government from 
controlling information and ideas. Americans deserve to know when their 
government is covertly trying to accomplish what the First Amendment 
prohibits.
  Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be 
discharged from further consideration of S. 1672 and 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 objection?
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I certainly 
appreciate Senator Hagerty's concerns. The freedom of speech, freedom 
of association, and freedom of the press are all very foundations of 
our Nation.
  But I am also concerned about the power of large tech companies, 
which we must--must--hold accountable. The Homeland Security Committee, 
which I chair, has held a series of bipartisan

[[Page S2453]]

oversight hearings on social media, including bringing in top 
executives to testify and to answer tough questions.
  I am deeply concerned, however, that the legislation that we are 
discussing today could have serious unintended consequences, including 
undermining our national security. This bill could damage our national 
intelligence and law enforcement operations by requiring Agencies to 
disclose every interaction with a social media platform about the 
activity of a terrorist or a criminal on their platform. This can 
involve sensitive ongoing investigations and enforcement action, 
including the terrorist use of social media to recruit Americans to 
carry out attacks against our homeland.
  The bill could also chill effects by executive and legislative branch 
employees who are working to address online threats and hate speech 
directed at Americans and communities all across our Nation. In 
addition to creating new redtape for staff trying to address these very 
difficult issues, it threatens them with a year in jail for not meeting 
paperwork deadlines.

  Certainly, we must all protect our Nation's First Amendment and the 
right to speak freely. However, this bill will not accomplish that 
goal, while potentially undermining our national security.
  Mr. President, therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, I appreciate the sentiments my Democratic 
colleague expressed, and I very much appreciate his work and his 
concerns with respect to Big Tech. I share those concerns.
  And I share some optimism today that we will find common ground to 
work together. The legislation I have put forward simply allows 
Americans to see when the government is trying to censor them. My 
colleague suggests that this is because of concern over protections for 
law enforcement and national security work.
  I would like to say this. My legislation contains appropriate 
exceptions to protect legitimate law enforcement or national security 
activity and preserve the confidentiality of those communications. But 
in assuming that the details of those protections are my colleague's 
only concern, I am happy to work with my colleague to address those 
concerns and ensure that the core of this legislation, which requires 
disclosure of government censorship efforts, is quickly enacted.
  I hope that Senator Peters and I can work together and do this 
because it is too significant to ignore. Our government, at the end of 
the day, works for the American people, and to ensure that this 
continues, the First Amendment prohibits the government from 
controlling what Americans can say or read. But now government is using 
Big Tech to accomplish such censorship, and 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. It is a basic element of 
self-government. I look forward to working with Senator Peters and his 
committee to try to make this something that can be acceptable to all.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.