[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 121 (Thursday, July 25, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5497-S5504]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ELIMINATE USELESS REPORTS ACT OF 2024--Continued
Unanimous Consent Request--Amendment No. 3085
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, if good intentions created good laws, there
would be no need for congressional debate. I have no doubt that the
authors of the bill on the floor genuinely want to protect children,
but the bill they have written promises to be Pandora's box of
unintended consequences.
The Kids Online Safety Act, known as KOSA, would impose an
unprecedented duty of care on internet platforms to mitigate certain
harms associated with mental health, such as anxiety, depression, and
eating disorders.
While proponents of the bill claim that the bill is not designed to
regulate content, imposing a duty of care on the internet platforms
associated with mental health can only lead to one outcome: the
stifling of First Amendment-protected speech.
Today's children live in a world far different from the one I grew up
in, and I am the first in line to tell kids: Go outside and touch
grass. With the internet, though, today's children do have some
advantages. They have the world at their fingertips, and that can often
be a good thing. Just about any question can be answered through the
internet by finding a scholarly article or a how-to video with a simple
search. Doctors' and therapists' offices close at night and on
weekends, but support groups are available 24 hours a day online, 7
days a week, for people who share similar concerns or who have had the
same health problems. People can connect, share information, and help
[[Page S5498]]
each other more easily than ever before. That is the beauty of
technological progress.
But the world can also be an ugly place. Like any other tool, the
internet can be misused, and parents must be vigilant. Parents must be
vigilant in protecting their kids online. It is perhaps understandable
that those who sit in this body might seek a government solution to
protect children from any harms that may result from spending too much
time on the internet, but before we impose a drastic, first-of-its-
kind, legal duty on online platforms, we should ensure that the
positive aspects of the internet are preserved. That means we have to
ensure that the First Amendment rights are protected and that these
platforms are provided with clear rules so they can comply with the
law. Unfortunately, this bill fails to do that in almost every respect.
As currently written, this bill is far too vague, and many of its
provisions are completely undefined. The bill creates a Board that is
empowered to regulate content that might affect mental health. Yet
KOSA, the bill, does not explicitly define the term ``mental health
disorder.'' Instead, it references the fifth edition of the
``Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders'' or ``the most
current successor edition.'' So we are going to regulate items on the
internet that might cause anxiety or might affect mental health based
on a definition that evolves over time in a book, that we are never
going to vote on again. It is going to be decided by whoever writes the
DSM sixth, seventh, and eighth versions for mental health.
Written this way, not only would someone looking at the law not know
what the definition is, but even more concerning, this definition could
change without any input from Congress. When the diagnostic manual
changes, the law will then be changed according to what the new
definition of ``mental health'' is. The scope of one of the most
expansive pieces of Federal tech legislation could drastically change
overnight. Congress may not even realize it until after it has already
happened. If the diagnostic manual on mental health changes the
definition, the law changes, and Congress will have had no input on
what the definition of ``mental health'' is.
None of my colleagues would be comfortable with a definition that
effectively delegates--or should be comfortable with a definition that
effectively delegates Congress's legislative authority to an
unaccountable third party.
Second, the bill would impose an unprecedented duty of care on
internet platforms to mitigate certain harms. It sounds good. They want
to mitigate harms such as anxiety, depression, and eating disorders.
But the legislation doesn't define what it considers harmful to minors,
and everyone will have a different belief as to what causes harm, much
less how online platforms should go about protecting minors from that
harm.
The sponsors of the bill will tell you this is not out of a desire to
regulate content, but the requirement that platforms mitigate undefined
harms to mental health belies the bill's effect to regulate online
content. How can you mitigate the effects of things that might cause
anxiety, because they all involve content? This bill will be setting up
a Board to regulate the content of the internet.
Imposing a duty of care on online platforms to mitigate harms
associated with mental health can only lead to one outcome: the
stifling of constitutionally protected speech.
For example, if online services use endless scrolling to promote
Shakespeare's works or algebra problems or the history of the Roman
Empire, would any lawmaker consider that to be harmful? I doubt it, and
that is because the website design does not do the harm.
So then you say: We are going to address the design of the website
and not the content, but the only way you can mitigate the so-called
harm is by mitigating the content. It is content, not design, that this
bill will regulate.
Last year, Harvard Medical School's magazine published a story called
``Climate Anxiety; The existential threat posed by climate change is
deeply troubling to many young people.'' So this bill is going to
regulate anxiety. What makes your kid anxious? Well, climate change
makes a lot of kids anxious. Are we going to regulate the discussion of
climate change for minors?
This article mentioned that among a cohort of more than 10,000 people
between the ages of 16 and 25, 60 percent of them are described as
being very worried about the climate, and nearly half said they have
anxiety affecting their daily functioning because they are worried
about the climate. Are we going to protect them by censoring and
removing content about climate change?
The world's most famous climate activist, Greta Thunberg, famously
suffers from climate anxiety. Should platforms have stopped her from
seeing things about climate warming or cooling or whatever the
conjecture is this year? Should they remove that because it makes Greta
Thunberg anxious? She has admitted that, as a teenager, Greta wouldn't
eat. She didn't eat for nearly a year. She lost weight. Some say her
growth was stunted. Should we remove climate change discussion from
teenagers because it creates anxiety? This bill has the potential to do
that.
Under this bill, Greta Thunberg would have been considered a minor,
and she could have been deprived from engaging in the online debates
that made her famous but also made her anxious.
Anxiety and eating disorders are two of the undefined harms that this
bill expects internet platforms to prevent and mitigate. Are those
sites going to allow discussion and debate about the climate? Are they
even going to allow the discussion of a person's story about overcoming
an eating disorder? That certainly could make people anxious.
What if you hear the story of someone with anorexia, and it makes you
think that you are an anorexic? Instead of getting the moral that it
was a bad idea to engage in this sort of psychological problem, it may
cause you to be anxious because you now have to address the situation.
Could that be regulated? Under this bill, it could.
What will happen is the fear of liability, the fear of lawsuits, the
fear of what will happen under the penalties of this bill are going to
cause people to censor themselves. Online platforms will be forced or
feel themselves forced or coerced to censor themselves.
There is a question: Will pictures of thin models be tolerated lest
it result in an eating disorder for the people who see them? There is a
discussion of this all over. Now everybody sees, you know, the obese
models who are now hired for Sports Illustrated in order to not cause
anxiety. Well, if that is done voluntarily by a magazine, by all means,
but if we are going to coerce these online platforms and say ``you
can't show people who are too thin,'' what is too thin? That is one of
the results that could happen from this bill.
What about violent images of war? I think even adults are made
anxious by that, but what of kids? Should we restrict images of war?
There is a war going on in Gaza, and there are a lot of young people
with opinions on that. Should we say, ``Well, young people shouldn't be
allowed to see images of Gaza because it might make them anxious''?
Should we silence discussions about gun rights from either side--from
the right or the left--because it might cause people anxiety? I would
think that if you had been in a school where there was a school
shooting, every time you would read about it, it would probably cause
you anxiety. Should this be something that parents should try to
address? or colleges? psychiatrists? By all means, parents should be
involved in what their kids do online, but once the government sets it
up, it depends on who is on the Board.
If the Democrats are in power--and they aren't really fond of the
Second Amendment--if they are in power, my guess is the people they
appoint to the Board will believe that gun ownership or gun use is
wrong and causes anxiety and shouldn't be on children's sites.
Conversely, when the Republicans are in charge--and we are more for
allowing the Constitution to be applied through the Second Amendment to
gun ownership--we probably would want to police people telling kids
they are not allowed to. It works both ways. There is enough to hate
this bill from the right and the left because the government shouldn't
be making these blanket decisions.
[[Page S5499]]
What of online discussions of sexuality? Would pro-gay or anti-gay
discussion cause anxiety in teenagers? I would think it might. This
bill would allow the children's online safety to regulate things that
cause anxiety. If a discussion of sexuality causes anxiety, it would be
eligible under this bill for mitigation.
They didn't want to use ``censorship'' because it sounds bad, but
that is what they want to do. They are appointing a committee called
the children's online safety council, which will be able to censor
things that cause anxiety: climate change, sexuality.
What about pro-life messaging? Should pro-life discussions cause
anxiety in teenage mothers considering abortion? I am guessing that
whole scenario from either the pro-life or the pro-abortion, you know,
perspective is full of anxiety. But are we going to protect the teenage
mom who might be offended that a pregnancy center is offering her a way
out or is offering her a lifeline to have her child, because maybe
somebody else thinks that she should have an abortion? Maybe she
decides one way or another, but it is anxiety. That is probably full of
more anxiety than most of us can imagine, but are we going to ban
teenagers from seeing that?
This is insane. This bill is not well thought out. This bill is
Pandora's box for censorship. In truth, this bill opens the door to
nearly limitless content regulation as people can and will argue that
most any piece of content could contribute to some form of mental
health disorder.
In addition, financial concerns may cause online forums to eliminate
all anxiety-inducing content for all users, regardless of age, if the
expense for policing teenagers is prohibitive. So think about it. If we
make this onerous process that adds a great deal of cost to the people
developing the websites and they have to be liable and the State
attorneys general can sue them, which this bill allows, maybe they say,
``Gosh, is it worth my while having any discussion of anxiety-producing
content?'' which basically means things that are controversial. ``Maybe
we should stay away from that.'' Maybe there will be a self-policing
effect to this bill where people are going to say, ``I am not going to
do it for my adult users because I don't want to be sued.''
The bill gives the unlimited right and cause of action for every
State attorney general. Some of them are on the far left, some of them
are on the far right, and you can imagine each of them has their own
pet cause to want to sue to say: You should take this content down.
This bill does not merely regulate the internet; it threatens to
stifle important and diverse discussions that are essential to a free
society. And who is empowered to help make these decisions? The task is
entrusted to a newly established speech police. This bill would create
a kids' online safety council--aka speech police--to decide what
constitutes harm to minors and what platforms would have to do to
address the harm.
So the harms are broadly defined--mental health, anxiety, gambling,
alcohol--but then the specifics of how it is going to be regulated are
left to this new regulatory body. This is what many on the right have
referred to as giving the power to bureaucrats.
There was a famous case called the Chevron case where they said the
government should give deference to anything created by government.
That is under review now, but this is the same problem. You are giving
power to this new group that can censor that is virtually unlimited and
ill-defined. These are the types of decisions that should be made by
parents and families, not unelected bureaucrats serving as a censorship
committee.
Those are not the only deficiencies of this bill. The bill seeks to
protect minors from beer and gambling ads on certain online platforms--
not everywhere, just in some places. So we are going to put this duty
on some platforms that your kid can't watch gambling ads and can't
watch beer ads, but on other platforms, we won't. So there will be a
differential to financial cost. Some places won't have to pay anything,
and other places will have to pay an amount to figure out how to set up
a website that doesn't let kids watch golf with gambling commercials.
The bill seeks to protect kids from beer and gambling ads on certain
online platforms, such as Facebook or Hulu. But if those same minors
turn their phone off and turn their TV on, they can jolly well watch as
much PGA with the announcer saying: FanDuel says gamble on Bryson
DeChambeau this week or Rory McIlroy.
This is a bizarre bill. We are going to make it illegal to talk about
certain things online or to advertise online for gambling or beer, but
your kid can simply turn the TV on and watch PGA, which is full of ads.
You can have a variety of opinions on whether we should have gambling
ads on TV, but they are perfectly legal. So we are going to punish
certain groups on the internet and still say your kid can just turn the
TV on--that is bizarre. It is just completely meaningless and bizarre.
Your kid can watch the Super Bowl with about a thousand beer
commercials on it. And I haven't really heard of a lot of people
jumping up and down and saying we should ban the Super Bowl or we
should say the Super Bowl can't have beer ads. But that is what this
says.
So with all the stuff your kid can watch on TV, he is now going to be
limited--not on the whole internet, because you can go to PGA.com, and
it has got an exemption because it is primarily news on sports. So they
carved out all of these exemptions, and then there are going to be
certain areas you can't go to on the internet. So this is a punishment
bill for certain aspects of the internet, not all of the internet,
because there are a lot of exceptions, and not for TV.
This is a crazy notion. Yet you are going to see it pass
overwhelmingly today because of the title: Kids Online Safety Act. Who
could oppose that?
There are some tragic stories of people who have committed suicide or
died because of things that happened on the internet. No one is here to
discount that. But it has to be thoughtful, how we fix it.
Is removing all discussion of climate change, abortion, gambling ads,
and beer ads going to do anything that would have addressed the life of
any of the children who tragically lost their lives? I think not.
This is a hand-fisted bill that will not fix the problem but will be
the first big bill to regulate speech online. It doesn't make any
sense.
Should we prevent online platforms from showing kids the same content
they can and do see on TV? Should sports viewership be effectively
relegated to the preinternet age? You can watch golf on TV; you can't
watch golf on a streaming service.
Even if it were possible to shield minors from every piece of content
that might cause anxiety, depression, or eating disorders, it still is
not enough to comply with KOSA--KOSA is the bill--because KOSA requires
websites to treat differently individuals that the platform knows or
should have known are minors. As you can realize, it is not easy to
tell what someone's age is online.
The standard had been that if there were rules for minors, you had to
know they were a minor, and you had to know you were broadcasting adult
content to a minor. But it is kind of hard to enforce. So they are
going to change the standard from ``you knew it was a minor'' to ``you
should have known it was a minor.''
This means that the media platforms that earnestly try to comply with
the law could be punished because the government thinks it ``should
have known'' a user was a minor. This dumbing down of the standard will
broaden the fear of this bill, broaden the impact of this bill, and
lead to countless lawsuits.
This bill, then, does not just apply to minors. A ``should have
known'' standard means that this bill is an internetwide regulation.
Every website will have to figure out who and how old they are so they
don't get in the way of the speech police or they don't get in the way
of being sued by the attorney general from that State.
This is opening pandora's box. It is not going to be just sites that
might have kids. It is every website, every streaming service that is
now going to have to police themselves at a cost and live in fear of
these people coming after them.
Adults and minors alike better get comfortable with providing a form
of
[[Page S5500]]
ID every time they wish to visit a website. This knowledge standard
destroys the notion of internet privacy and interactivity.
I raised several questions about this bill today, but no one--not
even the sponsors of this bill--can answer these questions honestly
because they don't know the answers. They are creating something that
is going to create the regulation of the internet.
This is the problem of most of the legislation in Washington. They
are not creating the censorship standards. They are creating an
autonomous body that will regulate things that cause anxiety. They
haven't told us what causes anxiety.
So I have given you examples. They are not in the bill because the
bill doesn't tell what this new body is going to regulate. It says
things that cause anxiety, things that might involve gambling or beer
or eating disorders. It could be any of those things. But they are just
going to tell you that we are going to let this body decide.
So the Senate is not going to decide what they are going to censor
today. They are going to create a committee today that then will be the
censorship committee, and, at a later date, we will decide what they
want to censor. This is an insane encroachment on the First Amendment.
The inability to answer these questions is a result of several vague
provisions in this bill, and once enacted into law, these questions
will not be answered by elected representatives. They will be answered
by unelected bureaucrats who are on this council, who will make the
decision as to what will be censored.
There are good reasons to think that the courts will strike this bill
down. They would have a host of reasons to do so. Vagueness pervades
the bill. The most meaningful terms are undefined, making compliance
with the bill nearly impossible. Even if we discount the many and
obvious First Amendment violations inherent in this bill, the courts
will likely find this bill void for vagueness. We can only hope so.
But we should not rely on the courts to save America from this poorly
drafted bill. The Senate can reject this bill today and force the
sponsors to at least provide greater clarity of the bill.
This bill, KOSA, is a Trojan horse. It purports to protect our
children by claiming limitless ability to regulate speech and depriving
them of the benefits of the internet, which include engaging with like-
minded individuals, expressing themselves freely, as well as
participating in debates among others with different opinions.
Government mandates and censorship will not protect children online.
The internet may pose new problems, but there is an age-old solution to
this issue. Free minds and parental guidance are the best means to
protect our children online.
Opposition to this bill is bipartisan, from advocates on the right to
the left. A pro-life organization, Students for Life Action, commented
on this bill stating:
Once again, a piece of federal legislation with broad
powers and vague definitions threatens pro-life speech. . . .
those targeted by a weaponized federal government will always
include pro-life Americans, defending mothers and their
children--born and [unborn].
Students for Life Action concluded their statement by saying:
Already the pro-life generation faces discrimination,
deplatforming, and short and long term bans on social media
on the whims of others. Students for Life calls for a No vote
on [this bill] to prevent viewpoint discrimination from
becoming federal policy at the FTC.
So you could say: I don't really care. I am on the other side of that
issue. I am a liberal, and I am pro-abortion. I don't care what pro-
life students say.
Well, maybe you should care what the ACLU has to say about this. The
ACLU brought more than 300 high school students to Capitol Hill to urge
Congress to vote no on this bill because, to quote the ACLU, ``it would
give the government the power to decide what content is dangerous to
young people, enabling censorship and endangering access to important
resources, like gender identity support, mental health materials, and
reproductive healthcare.''
So here you have it. You have people on one side who are pro-life,
like myself, who are worried that pro-life language will be stifled
because it might cause anxiety on teenagers. But you have people on the
other side, such as the ACLU, who would have--I believe when they refer
to ``reproductive healthcare'' they are talking about abortion. They
are worried that people in favor of abortion would be stifled as well.
This bill is opposed from the right and the left by anybody who is
thoughtful about freedom of speech, about freedom of association, about
freedom of discussion of ideas online.
In the next few minutes, I will ask unanimous consent to have an
amendment to this bill. What you will notice is, while the supporters
of this bill will come forward and say, ``It doesn't do that; it
doesn't do that,'' one thing that is for certain is they won't allow
amendments to this. So there will be no amendments to this bill.
The reason I am asking for an amendment from the floor is because
they have already said privately they will not allow amendments.
One reason they won't allow amendments is, when I read the content of
my amendment, people would be aghast that anybody could vote against
it. And a vote against it would be deeply damaging for people running
for office, Republican or Democrat.
The bill contains too many flaws as is. Even my one amendment
wouldn't fix this bill, but at least put people on the record who don't
believe that there should be restrictions for limiting religious or
social speech.
The Senate should tackle the most glaring problem with this bill:
that it will silence political, social, and religious speech.
My amendment seeks to address this concern, shared by many in the
pro-life movement, as well as anyone who values the principles of free
speech. My amendment merely states that no regulations that will be put
forward by this magical and mysterious new censorship police that will
be in the future--who we don't know who they are, and we don't know
what they will be regulating--but if my amendment were to pass, they
will not be allowed to regulate, and it will not apply to political,
social, and religious speech. Another name for that would be
constitutionally protected speech.
My amendment is intended to address the legitimate concern that the
bill threatens free speech online. If the supporters of this
legislation really want to leave content alone, they will allow the
amendment. So the fact that they will deny me this amendment
effectively tells Americans they don't want any dissent, and they
acknowledge that this is a bill of censorship.
They don't want anything to mitigate or lessen the ability for the
committee to censor you. So they will not allow this amendment. They
won't even allow a vote on it because they are afraid to be on record.
Really, the sponsors of the bill are here today, and they will rebut my
words. I would like them to state publicly for all of us how they would
vote on the amendment and why they are blocking the amendment.
If the supporters of this legislation really do want to leave content
alone, they will welcome and vote for my amendment to protect
political, social, and religious speech.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked on
the motion to concur with further amendment in the House amendment to
S. 2073, amendment No. 3022 be set aside, and it be in order for me to
call up my amendment No. 3085. I further ask that, at a time to be
determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Republican
leader, there be 30 minutes of debate, equally divided between the
proponents and opponents of my amendment; finally, that following the
use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on my amendment No.
3085 with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). Is there objection?
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have
listened to my colleague from Kentucky, and in the interest of time, I
think the very simple answer and the reason for my objection is: Read
the bill. Read the bill.
If you read the bill, you will see, for example, there is no
empowering of attorneys general to enforce this measure; there is no
vagueness in these provisions. They were crafted narrowly to target
specific evils--real evils--that destroy lives.
[[Page S5501]]
And if he thinks that this bill, as he has termed it, is ``crazy''
and ``bizarre,'' he should tell the parents and the young people who
have come to us over these past years--to Senator Blackburn and
myself--with harrowing stories of the destructive harm to their
children's lives, and young people telling us about those harms to
their own lives.
The principle of this bill is very simple: It does not empower those
unelected bureaucrats--which, again, unfortunately, our colleague from
Kentucky has misread. It empowers young people and parents. It gives
them choices. It enables them to take back control over their own
lives. It enables the strongest settings of safety by default. It
requires companies to disable product features that are destructive. It
gives young people and parents tools to opt out, to choose not to be a
part of algorithm recommendations that fuel destructive mental health
harms. It gives them safeguards to shield themselves against online
predators and options to protect their own information.
Young people and parents deserve these kinds of choices to make on
their own. That is the principle of the bill.
And so this mischaracterization is regrettable, but I know that my
colleagues are going to see through it--they are going to see that this
bill is very specific, not vague; narrowly targeted, not broad--to
protect children and give parents and kids choices that enable them to
take back control over their own lives.
And let me just say, there is no censorship in this bill--none, zero.
It is about product design, much as it would be about a car that is
unsafe and is required to have seatbelts and airbags.
We wouldn't credit an argument by a car manufacturer that somehow it
is a First Amendment right of expression to eliminate those car seats
and airbags that protect lives. It would be ludicrous. It would be
laughable, and so are these objections that have been made by my
colleague from Kentucky.
I am proud of the work that we have done on a bipartisan basis over
these years. This bill is the result of bipartisan, careful,
methodical, time-consuming work by Senator Blackburn and myself
listening to those parents and young people but also--and let me be
very blunt here--listening to the Big Tech companies. They have come to
us, and they have said, in effect: Trust us. Trust us. We will take
care of it.
We have seen this movie before. We know how it ends: No action.
``Trust us'' is no longer tolerable, and one reason it is no longer
tolerable is we have looked under the hood. We have seen how the car
works. We have seen it from their own documents, their own files, their
own written product designs. And we have seen their business model,
which is repetitive, toxic stuff driven at kids and more eyeballs
meaning more advertisers, meaning more dollars if those kids are online
for longer periods of time without the choices that we are giving them
to disconnect.
We are no longer going to trust Big Tech to do the job. We are
determined that we will make this product safer by empowering young
people and their parents and creating a duty of care--not vague, not
overbroad, but carefully crafted--to make sure that these companies
have to prevent the kind of harms that they know are happening.
We know they are happening because the documents show it, and their
own evidence, in effect, proves it. And we are not going to trust them
anymore to comply with the law; we are going to require audits and
transparency, access to the black box algorithms so that they are held
accountable.
This bill is a major step toward online safety for children, and I am
hopeful that my colleagues will, in fact, see through the inaccuracies
in the arguments that have just been made here and that they will join
Senator Blackburn and me, as 70 have done in cosponsoring this measure,
to say it is time for online safety.
I yield to my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Blackburn, who has
been a steadfast and invaluable partner in this effort.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, who has worked
so diligently on this.
This legislation has been years in the making, as he has said.
Basically, the amending process has gone on for 3 years. And as I
mentioned, 70 Members of this body have joined to sponsor this
legislation.
To the concerns that my colleague expressed, I want him to know this
is not a speech bill. This is not a content bill. No agency can make
rules on speech. Nonprofits are not covered in this bill. There is no
rulemaking. News outlets are not covered in this. The government is
given no new authority.
And when he mentioned websites and blogs, the Kids Online Safety Act
only covers social media, social networks, multiplayer online video
games, social messaging apps, video streaming services. It does not
include blogs and personal websites.
Now, the question he was saying that the Kids Online Safety Act
covers platforms that are run by nonprofits: Websites run by nonprofit
organizations, which often host important and valuable education and
support services, are not covered in the scope of this legislation. And
these are important points to make.
And as Senator Blumenthal said, reading the bill, you see this is a
product design. The duty of care that is there, it requires social
media companies to prevent and mitigate certain harms that they know
their platforms and products are causing to young users as a result of
their design choices, such as their recommendation algorithms, their
addictive product features.
The specific covered harms include suicide, eating disorders,
substance use disorders, and sexual exploitation. And these are the
reasons for having this duty of care and having this included in the
Kids Online Safety Act.
But, no, it is not a speech bill. It is not a content bill. It does
not include rulemaking authority. It has no rulemaking authority in the
legislation, and it does not give additional authority to the
government, and it does not give more authority to State attorneys
general or to the FTC.
So I think the fears are unfounded. This is a good product, good
legislation. We have worked with our colleagues. We have heard from
thousands--thousands--of kids and parents, pediatricians, teachers,
principals, mental health professionals, and everyone has come to the
table to say: It is time to hold Big Tech accountable for what is
happening to our kids.
And I yield back to my colleague from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I just want to add--and I thank
Senator Blackburn for her excellent summary and argument--about this
reference to social speech: We are dealing here with social media
companies. This proposed rule of construction, in effect, would destroy
the bill. That is the intent here, and we are not going to let it
happen.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, a few comments on the support the authors of
the bill have come forward with.
The discussion is that State attorneys are not empowered when, in
actuality, if you read the bill, the State attorneys are empowered.
They are specifically referred to in the bill, and they are
specifically empowered to sue if and when the Child Online Safety
Committee promulgates rules to the FTC. This is specifically given to
all these State attorneys, but also the rulemaking authority is given
in the bill.
State attorneys general will also be allowed to sue even if no rule
is made. This does empower State attorneys general across the Nation to
sue over whether or not people are adequately suppressing or censoring
speech based on anxiety. So that is a factual dispute we have with the
authors.
One of the authors says: We can't trust the online people. We can't
trust the people hosting these platforms.
Well, of course you can't. That is why you are supposed to be
parents. That is why you are supposed to be involved with your church
and community and you are supposed to try to police. Everything is
imperfect, but you are supposed to try. It isn't the government.
So he says: We can't trust them.
[[Page S5502]]
But, you know what, I have also heard another comment: Trust us; we
are from the government. Trust us; we are going to give this Child
Online Safety Committee unlimited, unchecked power to regulate anything
that causes your teenager to feel anxiety--from climate change to
sexuality to who knows what to eating disorders to thin models to
gambling on the PGA or any website, or beer commercials. This is
Pandora's box, and we need to be aware of what it actually does allow
to occur.
The rule of construction, the amendment that is being blocked, is
typical. This is a bill to block free speech. So in order to pass a
bill to block free speech, you block the free speech on the floor of
the Senate and disallow amendments.
Who in America would think it would be wrong to limit this bill and
to protect political, social, and religious speech? That is what they
are actually saying. They won't allow amendment on it, but they are not
for exempting political, social, or religious speech. What does that
mean? It means they conclude that the bill will allow regulation of
political, social, and religious speech.
Mark my words: We will revisit this issue. The court is either going
to strike this thing down or we are going to come back here in a year
or two, and people are going to go: Oh, my God. Did anybody read the
bill before they passed it?
They have 70 cosponsors because nobody reads the bills. Nobody thinks
of the implications of the bill. The bill gives virtually unlimited
purview to the Children's Online Safety Committee to determine what
causes anxiety.
Everything causes anxiety in teenagers. Every controversial subject
could potentially cause anxiety. This is a huge mistake to give this
authority to unelected bureaucrats--who we don't know who they are yet
or who will appoint them--who will make the decisions over what causes
anxiety.
So while these people--I grant them good motives. I grant them
wanting to do the best for people. I grant that there are terrible and
tragic cases where children have committed suicide or otherwise, but
this isn't the answer. The answer isn't to abbreviate or take away the
precious rights guaranteed under the First Amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
Members be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled vote: Senator
Markey for up to 5 minutes, Senator Cassidy for up to 5 minutes,
Senator Klobuchar for up to 5 minutes, Senator Schatz for up to 10
minutes, Senator Cruz for up to 5 minutes, Senator Blumenthal for up to
5 minutes, Senator Blackburn for up to 10 minutes, and Senator Schumer
for up to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
S. 2073
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise today in defense of the mental
health of children and teenagers in the United States of America.
Our young people today are facing a devastating mental health crisis.
I have said these statistics on the floor before, but they bear
repeating because they come from the Centers for Disease Control in our
country: One in three high school girls in the United States seriously
considered suicide in 2021 and at least one in ten high school girls
attempted suicide that year; among LGBTQ youth, the number is more like
one in five attempted suicide. That is staggering, and it is
unacceptable that Big Tech has knowingly contributed to these
disturbing numbers.
And let's just move on. Take it from the U.S. Surgeon General who,
just a few weeks ago, referred to the young mental health crisis as an
``emergency'' and identified social media as an ``important
contributor'' to that crisis.
Over the next week, the U.S. Senate has a chance, finally, to do
something about it, to stand up to Big Tech's lobbying machine and put
an end to the invasive targeting and tracking of young people online.
Today we have a procedural vote to move ahead on the Kids Online
Safety Act, which includes my legislation partnering with Senator
Cassidy, the Children and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act, or
COPPA 2.0. Our legislation cuts to the heart of this emergency by
addressing Big Tech's financial incentives to keep kids and teens
addicted to social media and allows kids, parents, and teens to say no
to the endless tracking and targeting of young people online in our
country, because as long as Big Tech can profit off of young people's
addiction, they will find ways to do so.
And our job is to change those incentives, to change Big Tech's
business model so that addicting kids and teens does not lead to fatter
wallets and larger bonuses for Big Tech executives. The core problem
facing children and teens is Big Tech's relentless and unyielding drive
to accumulate more and more data on its users.
This data may seem vague and uncertain, but it is anything but vague
and uncertain. It is a child's name, a child's email address, a child's
location, their height, their weight, their health conditions, their
fingerprints and facial scan, their likes, their dislikes, even their
sexual orientation and gender identity. Why? Targeted advertising by
Big Tech companies.
With more data, the platforms can develop more effective targeted
ads; ads that are chosen to match the user's specific age, location,
and interests; ads that are displayed at a certain time of day when the
algorithm knows a user is most likely to click them; and soon, with the
advent of artificial intelligence, perhaps ads that are even generated
just for the individual user. That is the promise of AI.
All of this hyperpersonalized advertising requires huge amounts of
data on an individual user. Data is the fuel for Big Tech's profit
machine, the raw material that sustains Big Tech's business model. The
formula is simple: More time on social media means more data to fuel
the targeted advertising machine, which means more profits for Big
Tech. More addiction equals more data equals more money for Big Tech.
Very simple. And they target teenagers and children in our country in
the same way that the tobacco industry targeted teenagers and children.
And it is a lot of money.
In 2022, the major Big Tech platforms earned nearly $11 billion from
U.S. users under the age of 18--$11 billion. That is 11 billion reasons
to build ever more sophisticated data profiles on younger users; 11
billion reasons to develop new addictive features; 11 billion reasons
to keep your young people clicking, swiping, and liking all day long.
With the growth of artificial intelligence, Big Tech's appetite for
data has never been greater. And that means the privacy of our young
people has never been more at risk. The question, then, is how to
change Big Tech's incentives to develop platforms that benefit children
and teens rather than addict them. And if Big Tech no longer has an
incentive to maximize the data collected on a young person, it will
lose the incentive to develop ever-changing methods to addict that
child or teen in the first place.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time expired.
Mr. MARKEY. May I ask for one additional minute?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MARKEY. Here is what the bill does. One, it will ban targeted
advertising to children and teens. Two, it will create an eraser button
to delete children and teens' data. And, three, stop the unnecessary
data collection practices of online platforms.
With these updates, the Senate has an opportunity to pass the most
comprehensive privacy law for young people in over 25 years and send a
message to Big Tech that these days of invading and exploiting young
people must come to an end.
We have to stop business as usual. That is what we are going to vote
on today, to begin this process procedurally to get it out on the floor
of the Senate substantively for an historic vote next week.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, think about how much has happened over
the last several weeks. We have had one Presidential candidate survive
an assassination attempt. Our current President is dropping out of the
race. We
[[Page S5503]]
have had protesters burning an American flag and raising a Palestinian
flag as the United States' closest ally gave a speech to Congress
yesterday. That is how much has happened in several weeks.
Guess what hasn't happened in 25 years? An update of how to protect
children on their online experience. That has not changed in 25 years,
even when so much happens in just a few weeks. So rules from 25 years
ago cannot effectively govern social media sites that did not exist 25
years ago, were not conceived of 25 years ago.
We have waited too long to update these rules, but today we have a
chance to fix. The current armor protecting children's internet
activity passed into law in 1998. Babies born that year are well into
their professional careers. People were concerned about Y2K, and Nick
Saban had not become LSU's football coach.
Of course, the 1998 rules do not prohibit Instagram, Facebook, and
TikTok from collecting personal information on young teenagers without
consent because that was not envisioned 25 years ago.
Today, the internet is an integral part of a child's life. The
information a child has access to has drastically expanded, exposing
children to risks that they may not have the maturity to navigate
independently.
The internet has so many good things and can be a great learning tool
for our children. But we can't ignore the dangers--the adult content,
the pornography, the cyber bullying, the violence, the predatory
behavior, the overall impact upon our children's mental health. Our
children should not be left to face these challenges alone. Under
current law, the law passed in 1998--good for the time, but not for
now--only children less than age 13 were covered, leaving a whole
population of teenagers unprotected.
With 95 percent of teenagers between 13 and 17 using social media,
their protections should be expanded. By expanding these protections,
by banning targeted advertising, by limiting data collection, and
strengthening parental control, COPPA 2.0 enables safer online
experiences and guards against exposure to manipulation and
exploitation. This, in lockstep with the Kids Online Safety Act, or
KOSA, will give the parents the peace of mind to know their child is
safer than they were before.
These bills empower parents. They empower children. They are
bipartisan no-brainers, which is why they have overwhelming bipartisan
support in both Chambers of Congress.
Look, I am a doctor, a father, a grandfather. But I am not the only
grandfather and father voting on these pieces of legislation. Anyone
with children knows that they would do anything to protect those
children. Congress has a chance to reflect that paternal and maternal
instinct and take a serious step to protect our children. These bills
will make a difference. I urge my colleagues to support.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today because the time to
protect our kids from these online platforms is now, after decades of
delay, thanks to our colleagues, Senators Blumenthal, Blackburn,
Markey, and Cassidy, as well as Chair Cantwell and Ranking Member Cruz,
Judiciary Committee Chair Durbin and Leader Schumer, as well as Ranking
Member Graham. I serve on both committees. I have been a strong
proponent of these bills as well as others.
For too long, social media companies have turned a blind eye when
children join their platforms and build algorithms that push harmful
content out to kids.
What have we seen? A recent study from the Mayo Clinic showed us--the
study found kids have difficulty sleeping, unrealistic expectations
about their bodies or their lives, exposure to online predators,
subject to cyber bullying. The result of this is tragic results for
teens.
I am thinking of Devin Norring from Hastings, MN. I have gotten to
know his mom Bridgette. Struggling with migraines, he bought what he
thought was Percocet online on Snapchat, but it wasn't really Percocet.
It was laced with fentanyl. Right off Snapchat, he got that pill. He
died.
Alexander Neville, like Devin, purchased a pill online that turned
out to be counterfeit made with fentanyl. It killed him. He was only
14.
Carson Bride ended his life 4 years ago after he was viciously cyber
bullied by his high school classmates who were using Snapchat's
anonymous app. Not so anonymous for Carson Bride.
I met with their moms. They have come to the Capitol. They are here
today. It is time to get this done with no delay. Why do they even need
to be here? Because there weren't safeguards and rules already in
place.
Why didn't these companies act when they learned of the danger? Let's
be clear. They knew of the danger. This is about profits over safety.
When that Boeing plane door fell out, what happened? We grounded the
fleet. We made sure it was safe. Why haven't we been doing this here?
It is time to act. It has been 26 years since Congress passed any
meaningful kids' online privacy legislation. I am so honored that the
chair of the Judiciary Committee is here, Senator Durbin, who helped me
and Senator Cornyn to get the SHIELD Act through this Chamber, which
would prohibit the online distribution of explicit and intimate images,
also known as revenge porn.
We just passed Senator Durbin's DEFIANCE Act, with Senator Hawley and
Senator Graham and myself, to allow victims of explicit deepfakes to
seek the justice that they deserve.
The Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act before us will expand existing
laws to protect children online. It also goes further to ensure a safe
online environment for children by creating a legal duty for social
media companies to take all necessary steps to protect kids from
harmful features and algorithms on their platforms.
I will never forget the parent who once told me that she was relying
on her older kids because she couldn't figure out how to stop her
younger kid from putting up more and more apps, and she couldn't get
around it. She said it was like water overflowing a sink, and she was
out there by herself with a mop trying to mop it up. I thought that
kind of said it all for how parents feel. We need to stand by their
side.
In addition to the bills that are so important before us today, we
need to pass the Cooper Davis and Devin Norring Act, which requires
social media companies to report illegal drug sales on their platforms.
To law enforcement, that bill is heading this way to the floor.
We need to finally take this on; not put our heads in the sand, not
expect those parents to be out there with a mop while these big
companies are profiting off of their kids. This is a moment, but this
is only a beginning. There is so much more work to do.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, while there is no doubt our country has
greatly benefited from the internet, for some families, it has come at
a painful and even tragic cost.
Every parent I know is concerned about the online threats directed at
our kids. Whether it is predators targeting children or online videos
promoting self-harm, risky life choices, or undermining their lack of
self-esteem, we all know someone who has had to grapple with the
failure of Big Tech to take responsibility for the harms caused by its
products.
Today, the Senate is beginning to put Big Tech on notice. The Kids
Online Safety Act, or KOSA, and the Children and Teens' Online Privacy
Protection Act, or COPPA 2.0, will both help keep children safer online
and protect their privacy.
I want to thank Senators Blackburn, Blumenthal, Markey, and Cantwell
for collaborating with me and my team over the past year to
significantly improve both measures.
In KOSA, we added an express preemption provision that will help
limit the litigation magnet from a patchwork of State laws.
We eliminated all FTC rulemaking authority, putting in place
guardrails against government overreach.
Importantly, we also struck an important balanced approach on the
obligation tech companies have with respect to determining whether a
user online is a minor in both KOSA and COPPA 2.0. Instead of the
current law's age-verification approach--an actual knowledge standard
that has permitted
[[Page S5504]]
tech companies to rely on children absurdly claiming to have been born
in 1882--tech companies will now have to bear more responsibility to
enforce underage online accounts. This update is not a constructive
knowledge standard, but it reflects, rather, a balance that puts
greater responsibility on tech companies without imposing unfeasible
requirements.
Nearly 30 years after the original COPPA's passage, the internet has
changed, and I believe COPPA 2.0 meets the moment to update the current
privacy issues effectively.
Congress should continue to build off the specific bipartisan
provisions in COPPA 2.0 for children's privacy and enact a
comprehensive data privacy bill. In the Commerce Committee, I intend to
continue that work.
KOSA and COPPA 2.0 are important first steps in protecting children
online, but we are not finished. More work remains to be done.
Senator Klobuchar and I have together introduced the Take It Down
Act, which targets bad actors who use AI to create and publish on
social media sites fake, explicit imagery of real people--often teenage
girls. The Take It Down Act gives them the justice they deserve by
criminalizing the spread of so-called revenge porn and requiring Big
Tech to remove the images immediately upon notice by the victim. It
also applies to fake images made using AI, deepfake images that we are
seeing more and more becoming a plague targeting young people and in
particular young women.
Senator Schatz and I have also introduced the Kids Off Social Media
Act, KOSMA, which builds upon KOSA by addressing specific harms to
children from social media--especially in schools. Big Tech claims
users under 13 aren't permitted, so KOSMA makes that explicit. It
prohibits children under 13 from having social media accounts. It stops
companies from targeting minors, and it requires schools to block
social media in school.
I hope this body will meet parents where they are and say enough is
enough. Let's also soon pass KOSMA because there is no good reason for
an 8-year-old to be on Instagram or a teenager to be doom-scrolling
Twitter in a classroom at taxpayers' expense.
Parents across the country agree: It is time Congress answered the
call and held Big Tech accountable. I am proud to work alongside
Republicans and Democrats. I am proud of the work the Commerce
Committee has done to bring KOSA and COPPA 2.0 forward. I look forward
to continuing this critically important work of protecting our kids
online.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Butler). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________