[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.

                          ____________________