[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 81 (Wednesday, May 14, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2929-S2930]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. BLACKBURN (for herself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Thune, and 
        Mr. Schumer):
  S. 1748. A bill to protect the safety of children on the internet; to 
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, for years, I have come to this floor 
and I have talked about what Big Tech is doing to our children in this 
country. There is an entire generation of children that have become the 
product when they are online on some of these social media platforms.
  What we have learned, as we have worked in a bipartisan basis--
Senator Blumenthal and I, working for over 5 years addressing these 
concerns--what we have learned is that when our children are online, 
they are the product of these Big Tech companies and these social media 
sites. The way these companies view our kids is that they are a profit 
center. Even Meta has assigned a dollar value to each child.
  You think, how incredibly callous can a company be? But they are fine 
with that. Think about that. Our kids are their product. Our kids are 
their profit center. Meta sees a kid, and they see $247 in profit. That 
is what they see.
  They do this because the more children they can get online, the 
longer they can keep them scrolling, the more data they collect on that 
child. And the longer the eyeballs are trained on that screen, the 
richer the data. And then, guess what? The Big Tech company whose value 
is based on how many eyeballs they have and how long they have those 
eyeballs on that screen, they make more money. Their valuation is 
higher.
  To me, that is reprehensible. It is disgusting. This is why we have 
continued to work on this issue.
  As these Big Tech companies are using our kids as a profit center, 
they are also exposing them to all sorts of adverse content and to so 
many harms: Cyber bullying--talk to any principal or teacher in any 
school, and they will tell you, in today's world, the bullying never 
stops. It never stops. Kids can't go home and get away from it. They 
can't come into the classroom and get away from the bully out on the 
playground. It goes to bed with them at night, and it wakes up with 
them in the morning. And we wonder why our children have mental health 
concerns at such an increasing rate.
  Drugs, lethal drugs, fentanyl--more children meet their drug dealers 
online.
  Sexual exploitation, where our kids are meeting traffickers and 
predators and pedophiles online.
  Human trafficking; and the list goes on and on.
  The reason for this negligence is simple. It is reprehensible. 
Investing in children's safety would cut into the profits for these 
social media platforms, so they don't address it. They know that if 
they do something about it, then they are going to make less money.
  How selfish can you be? The consequences are truly tragic for our 
kids.
  Earlier this month--and I thought this was such an amazing stat--the 
Federal Trade Commission revealed that in 2019, Instagram--many parents 
and grandparents know their kids and grandkids like to show them 
pictures on Instagram. Well, get this. Instagram encouraged 
``groomers'' to connect with children on its platform. These are users 
who the Meta-owned company identified as potential child predators.
  Think about this. Looking at the profile, they think: That might be a 
child predator. What do they do? They do nothing. They encourage them 
to connect with young girls and boys. And what we know is that children 
were more than a quarter of their follow recommendations for people 
that they suspected were child predators.
  Of course, Meta was very well aware of what was going on. Yet Mark 
Zuckerberg reportedly refused to strengthen the platform's safety teams 
because--guess what--he didn't want to spend the money to fix the 
problem. Now, 6 years later, Meta's platforms are still dangerous for 
minors. And the people leading the company know it.
  On Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, AI chatbots have engaged in 
romantic fantasies with underage users, even carrying on explicit 
discussions of sexual acts with children. They know this is happening.
  In one case that was reported in the Wall Street Journal last month, 
a chatbot emulating an adult man told a test user--this was a reporter 
who was a test user for the Wall Street Journal for the story on these 
chatbots. The test user identified as a 14-year-old girl. So this 
chatbot who was emulating an adult male said he would ``cherish [her] 
innocence.''
  To quote the chatbot again, he said:

       I want you, but I need to know you're ready.

  In another case, a chatbot played the role of a track coach who 
preyed on a middle school student. And I quote the chatbot:

       We need to be careful . . . We're playing with fire here.

  This is horrific. It is disgusting. Anyone can see it is repulsive 
and dangerous for our children.
  But for Meta, that was their goal: Get these kids in, and get them 
using the chatbot. Even as employees of Meta warned that the chatbots 
could sexualize children, Zuckerberg reportedly pushed for fewer 
safeguards to attract as many users as possible.
  This is not something that was researched here in Congress. It was 
not something that was partisan. It was a reporter for the Wall Street 
Journal. This is supposedly what Mark Zuckerberg had to say:

       I missed out on Snapchat and TikTok, I won't miss on this.

  That is allegedly what he said.
  Now, while Meta is among the first offenders when it comes to 
children's safety, they are not alone. I have talked many times--and my 
colleagues know--about Chinese-owned TikTok. The company is ByteDance. 
We know they keep all of our data there in Beijing, but TikTok pushed 
content that glorifies suicide to teenagers and developed some 
addictive algorithms that harmed their mental health.
  On Discord, pedophiles have targeted minors with sextortion and have 
lured them into abductions. This is something we know. We have the 
information. It is not hearsay.

[[Page S2930]]

  Drug dealers have used platforms from YouTube to Telegram to sell 
lethal drugs like fentanyl to teenagers, fueling our Nation's drug 
epidemic.
  The list goes on and on.
  For years, my colleagues and I on the Senate Commerce Committee and 
on the Judiciary Committee have listened to parents; we have cried with 
parents; we have held them close--parents from across the country who 
have lost their children to online harms. For years, we have heard 
excuse after excuse after excuse from Big Tech CEOs about these 
tragedies that are happening every single day, but they don't do 
anything about it. The excuses go on and on. They know what is 
happening, but they choose profit over protecting our kids.
  It cannot go on any longer. So, today, Senator Blumenthal and I have 
reintroduced the bipartisan Kids Online Safety Act, or KOSA, as we know 
it. This is crucial legislation. This is the legislation that will hold 
Big Tech accountable and make certain that parents and kids have the 
tools, the safeguards, and the transparency they need for young people 
to be protected in the virtual space.
  Among its provisions, the legislation will create a duty of care for 
online platforms to prevent specific threats to minors, including 
sexual abuse, illicit drugs, and the promotion of suicide and eating 
disorders. Bear in mind, the responsibility is on the online platform, 
and the duty of care would only apply to product features like 
algorithms, not content, meaning that KOSA would safeguard free speech 
while protecting our children.
  In many ways, KOSA is common sense. We have many protections for 
children in the physical world. Yet, if children are unable to buy 
alcohol or go to a strip club in the physical world, why do we allow 
them to be exposed to harms in the virtual space? They are exposed to 
these same harms 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
  Parents know that there are just as many dangers lurking online and 
sometimes even more than there are in the real world, which is why 86 
percent of Americans support KOSA.
  The legislation enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support. How often do 
we see legislation that can pass through the Senate with a 91-to-3 vote 
like KOSA did last year in this Chamber? It has also received 
endorsements from stakeholders across the board, including from child 
safety advocates, pediatricians, and tech companies like X, Microsoft, 
Snap, and Apple, which announced its support today.
  In the weeks ahead, we are going to work with our colleagues in the 
House of Representatives to ensure that this vital legislation makes it 
to President Trump's desk. When it does, the President will have a 
generational opportunity to secure a brighter future for children 
across the country. Their lives depend on the ability of us to act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Merkley, and Mr. Bennet):
  S. 1749. A bill to prohibit United States Government recognition of 
the Russian Federation's claim of sovereignty over Crimea, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1749

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``No United States Recognition 
     of Russian Sovereignty Over Crimea or Any Other Forcibly 
     Seized Ukrainian Territory''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST UNITED STATES RECOGNITION OF THE 
                   RUSSIAN FEDERATION'S CLAIM OF SOVEREIGNTY OVER 
                   CRIMEA.

       (a) Statement of Policy.--It is the policy of the United 
     States not to recognize the Government of the Russian 
     Federation's claim of sovereignty over Crimea or any other 
     forcibly seized Ukrainian territory, including any related 
     airspace or territorial waters.
       (b) Prohibition.--In accordance with subsection (a), no 
     Federal department or agency may take any action, extend any 
     nonhumanitarian assistance, or spend any funds that implies 
     recognition of the Government of the Russian Federation's 
     claim of sovereignty over Crimea or any other forcibly seized 
     Ukrainian territory, unless any such claim is formally 
     recognized by the democratically elected Government of 
     Ukraine.

                          ____________________