[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 6, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S413-S414]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1199
Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, last week, the executives of some of the
largest tech companies in the United States came before the U.S.
Senate. And the world got to see, with all too vivid detail, just what
these companies and these executives are doing to our children. And I
say ``children'' advisedly. I am talking about 12- and 13- and 14- and
15-year-old kids on these platforms--on Facebook, on Instagram, on
SNAP--who are exposed to the most outrageous, unbelievable, grotesque,
and vivid child sex abuse material known to mankind: images of
exploitation, solicitations by pedophiles.
It is unbelievable, indescribable material. And these platforms are
absolutely awash with it. And we saw it last week. We heard the
testimony. It was so bad that Mark Zuckerberg, the founder and CEO of
Meta, actually felt forced to apologize to the parents there in the
room and the parents across this country who have lost their children
to suicide, whose children have suffered extraordinary harm because of
the sex abuse material, the exploitative content that is all over Meta,
that is all over these platforms.
And oh, by the way, they are making an astounding profit. These
companies are the most profitable companies in the world. They are the
biggest companies in the history of the world. Facebook's share prices
actually went up the day after Zuckerberg's testimony. It is
unbelievable. Here they are making money hand over fist on destroying
America's children.
The numbers tell the tale. Think of this: In 2014, there were 1.1
million reports of child sex abuse material online that year. That in
itself is an incredible number--a million reports--but look at this: By
2022, that number had risen to 32 million reports of child sex abuse
material--child porn, child exploitation, solicitations. In just in 1
year, there were 32 million reports. That is just the images that are
actually being reported. Those are just the ones we know about. We know
from the testimony of the tech executives, we know from the reporting
of news agencies, we know from the investigations that have been done,
we know from the parents, that these platforms are absolutely littered
with, awash with, overrun with this material, and because of that,
children are literally dying.
Is it any coincidence that since the introduction of the smartphone
and the ubiquity of these platforms in the hands of young people, that
suicide rates and mental health crises have skyrocketed in this
country?
Oh, the platforms know, by the way. They absolutely know. A
whistleblower testified before the U.S. Senate committee earlier this
past year. He worked as a senior executive at Meta--that is Facebook.
He knows Mark Zuckerberg personally. He was hired by Zuckerberg
personally. He reported in part to Zuckerberg. Here is the thing,
though: He had a teenage daughter. Yes, he had a teenage daughter who
created an Instagram account, went online, and then told her father,
this executive: Dad, you won't believe what I am seeing online. You
won't believe what is happening to me online.
So he looked into it, as any father would, and then he began to
compile the data that he could find based on Instagram's own internal
metrics, based on their user data and information. Here is a piece,
just a piece, of what he found: that 37 percent of Instagram users
between the ages of 13 and 15--let me say that again--37 percent of
Instagram users between the ages of 13 and 15 had experienced unwanted
nudity on the platform in the past 7 days.
Let me just spell this out for you. It is largely, overwhelmingly
young, teenage girls, young women, who are bombarded with--bombarded
with--the most unbelievable pictures, content, conduct as soon as they
get onto these platforms.
Twenty-four percent of Instagram users between the ages of 13 and 15
had received unwanted sexual advances in just the last 7 days, had been
propositioned in 7 days.
Seventeen percent of Instagram users in that same age range--young
teenagers--had encountered self-harm content--how to commit suicide--
within the last 7 days.
These are Instagram's own numbers. These were given to us by the
whistleblower who, as an executive at Instagram, told Mark Zuckerberg
about it. What did Mr. Zuckerberg do? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Consider another case. Here is a picture of a young girl, 13 years
old, named Issa. Issa doesn't actually exist. The New Mexico attorney
general has launched an investigation into Meta--that is Facebook and
Instagram--and their investigators created this profile.
As you can see from the picture, she looks incredibly young. The
profile picture information lists her as 13 years old. What happens as
soon as she gets on the Meta platforms? As soon as she gets on the Meta
platforms--this is all in court documents, by the way. Read it for
yourself. It is horrifying. What happened was she was instantly added
to a chat room with known pedophiles. What happened was her account was
instantly bombarded with sexual material from older men. What happened
was she was instantly sent multiple images of child sex abuse material
over and over and over and over.
Oh, and the tech executives--they know all about it, and they are not
doing a thing about it. Why? Because they are not accountable.
Here is the bottom line: This is the only industry in the country
that can make a product that will literally kill you, and if it does,
you can't do anything about it. If it kills your child, you can't do
anything about it. If it harms you, you can't do anything about it.
Think about this for a second. In this country, if a Coca-Cola
manufacturer makes a bottle that explodes in your hands, you can sue
them. If the drug company makes drugs that are full of adulterated
products that cause harms that are not disclosed that kill people, you
can sue them. If an automobile company makes cars that explode, you can
sue them. Not these companies. No, not these companies. These companies
have a special immunity from suit. How do they get that? Why, it was
given to them. By whom? By this body. This body, almost 30 years ago,
gave these powerful corporations total blanket immunity. They cannot be
held responsible. They make products that kill; they cannot be held
responsible.
That is why we are here today. The Senate Judiciary Committee has
heard testimony over and over again. We have written bills. We marked
them up.
The bill that I want the Senate to address today is one that has
passed the Senate Judiciary Committee--get this--unanimously.
Unanimously. Every Democrat. Every Republican. What does it do? Simple:
It allows victims to have their day in court. It
[[Page S414]]
gives victims of these tech platforms the same right that victims of
some car company or drug manufacturer or other product maker would
have: the right to get into court; the basic American right to be
heard; the right to hold accountable the most powerful corporations in
the history of this Nation. That is what this bill does. I am proud to
cosponsor it. I am proud that it received unanimous support in the
committee.
Mr. President, I will just say this: We have had hearings and
hearings and hearings. We have had talks until there is no more talk to
be done. It is time for Congress to act.
Mr. Zuckerberg's apology is nice, but that is not going to help the
victims of child sex abuse. What will help the victims of child sex
abuse is the right to hold these companies accountable.
It is time for Congress to act because, let's be honest, Congress
helped create the problem. Do you want to know why there is sex abuse
content overwhelming the internet? Because Congress enabled it.
Congress did. Congress did. And the refusal now to allow victims to
have their basic rights in court is allowing that child sex
exploitation to continue and continue and continue. It is time to break
the cycle.
After Zuckerberg and the others came before the committee, after they
apologized, I said now it is time for Congress to act. Let's take the
work we have done, and let's put it on the floor. Let's act. Let's see
where we are. Let's do something for victims. Let's right the wrongs
that this body has helped create, and let's give victims the right to
be heard.
Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule
XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of Calendar No. 69, S. 1199; further, 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 with no
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I very much share the stated goals of the
STOP CSAM Act. Child sexual abuse material is a toxic plague on the
internet. There are real victims who need real support and criminals
who must be hunted down and locked up.
I take a back seat to no one when it comes to helping kids and
punishing predators. However, this bill would weaken the single
strongest technology that now protects children and families--that's
strong encryption. It will make it easier to punish sites that use
encryption to secure private conversations and personal devices. While
STOP CSAM's sponsors have argued that the bill does not target
encryption, the bill explicitly allows courts to punish companies that
offer strong encryption. It also would encourage scanning of content on
user's phones or computers before information is sent over the
internet, which has the same consequences as breaking encryption.
Weakening encryption is probably the single biggest gift that you can
give to the predators and the monsters who want to stalk and spy on
kids. Sexual predators will have a far easier time stealing and
extorting photographs of children, tracking their phones, and spying on
their private messages once encryption is breached.
Doing so threatens the privacy and security of every single law-
abiding American.
I also think it is surprising that the Senator is asking to pass this
bill at the very same time its sponsor is reportedly circulating an
updated version of the bill with a number of changes. Although that new
version of the legislation has not been made public, it certainly would
be a mistake to pass legislation that apparently is still in the
process of being revised.
Mr. President, what this is all about is talking about doing
something effective or actually taking effective action. I have
proposed doing just that. We ought to focus on giving law enforcement
officials the tools they need to find and prosecute criminals
responsible for exploiting kids and spreading these vile materials
online. That way, we can help keep kids from becoming victims in the
first place.
Let me also say that we can do this if Members support my bipartisan
Invest in Child Safety Act. The bill directs $5 billion in mandatory
funding to do three things which would ensure that we have an effective
response for families and parents: one, give law enforcement agencies
the tools and personnel they need to catch the predators who are
creating and spreading CSAM; two, fund community-based programs to
prevent at-risk kids from becoming victims in the first place; three,
invest in programs to support survivors of abuse.
Any legislation that doesn't include these pieces is missing the
point; therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, there you have it. There are the Big Tech
talking points. The problem is that they are entirely false. I have the
bill text in front of me--the bill text that, again, passed unanimously
out of the Senate Judiciary Committee--that explicitly exempts
encryption technology: page 184, lines 15 and following; page 185,
lines 1 through 18. You can read it for yourself--explicitly exempts.
That is not true at all. It is flatly false.
I have been on this floor over and over and over again on this issue,
and every time, we are told: Not today. Not this. A little more of
that. Maybe if it were more bipartisan.
This has unanimous support from the Judiciary Committee. Unanimous.
Every Republican. Every Democrat.
And we all know the truth here: that until victims can get into court
and have the rights and dignity of every other American challenging any
other company, this will not change.
Congress created this problem. Congress created it by giving the most
powerful companies in the world a sweetheart deal that they still have
to this day.
It is an easy choice: Are you with the corporations or are you with
the American people? Are you with the big companies or are you with the
child victims? That is the choice.
I would just say to those who continue to support 230 with no
exceptions, no exemptions, no reform, no recognition of the incredible
danger it has unleashed for children, that they are on an island.
This state of affairs cannot continue. It cannot continue to be that
if Big Tech sells products that kill kids, they cannot be held
responsible.
It cannot continue to be that only these companies, the most powerful
companies in the world, get a pass that nobody else gets, because
nobody should get it.
I am committed to coming to this floor and forcing votes as long as
it takes--as long as it takes--until we get justice for victims, until
they are heard, and until these companies are finally held accountable.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent to briefly
respond to what my colleague has just repeated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. And then I would ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes to
speak in favor of a very talented jurist in Oregon, who will be voted
on shortly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, first, with respect to my response to our
colleague from Missouri, let me be clear on a point that technologists
are clear on. This bill would weaken the strongest technology that
protects children and families online: strong encryption. And this bill
explicitly allows courts to punish companies that offer strong
encryption. That is right at the center of my objection.