[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 166 (Thursday, September 24, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5851-S5854]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXTENDING THE UNDERTAKING SPAM, SPYWARE, AND FRAUD ENFORCEMENT WITH
ENFORCERS BEYOND BORDERS ACT OF 2006
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from
further consideration of H.R. 4779 and that
[[Page S5852]]
the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 4779) to extend the Undertaking Spam, Spyware,
And Fraud Enforcement With Enforcers beyond Borders Act of
2006, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the
Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered
read a third time.
The bill was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, this bill, H.R. 4779, ``To extend the
Undertaking Spam, Spyware, And Fraud Enforcement With Enforcers beyond
Borders Act of 2006,'' would reauthorize the U.S. SAFE WEB Act, which
is an important tool for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate
and take action against the scams, robocalls, and fraud that may span
international borders. It would save consumers the hardship and
heartbreak, financial pain, and emotional travail of fraud, scams, and
robocalls that may have international implications and impacts.
The SAFE WEB Act has been reauthorized on a bipartisan basis over
many years. I am pleased to cooperate and collaborate with Senator
Moran of Kansas, who is a great partner in consumer protection and this
effort and is the chairman of the subcommittee on which I am the
ranking member.
We all know that fraud spawned by foreign criminal organizations, as
well as domestic ones, has caused significant harm to consumers here.
Therefore, this measure will provide the tools that are essential to
the FTC in protecting consumers and in enforcing the law.
I know of no further debate on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If not, the bill having been read the third time, the question is,
Shall the bill pass?
The bill (H.R. 4779) was passed.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider
be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Government Funding
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in a few moments we are going to vote on
the motion to proceed to H.R. 8337, the Continuing Appropriations Act
of 2021 and Other Extensions Act of 2020.
I will speak a little bit about what is in there, but I will urge all
Members to vote aye.
The bill provides funding for the government through December 11 at
fiscal year 2020 funding levels. It will be under the same terms and
conditions contained in the fiscal year 2020 appropriations laws. These
were the laws that Chairman Shelby and I brought to the floor and have
been voted on.
It includes several authorization matters to extend programs that
otherwise would expire, including some important health and veteran
programs.
So as vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I support the
bill, but I am disappointed that it is needed at all.
As I have said many times, we had ample--ample time in the Senate to
complete our work on the 12 appropriations bills, but we didn't mark up
a single one. In June, July, we could have passed all 12 of them, but
the majority leader wouldn't even bring up a single one of them.
Apparently, he is more interested in confirming extreme rightwing
judges than moving legislation to address the needs of the American
people, including appropriations bills or critical legislation to
combat the COVID virus and its impact on families and the economy.
I chuckle, too, in a way ruefully because, of course, my friends on
the other side--especially if there is a Democratic administration--say
they must follow the Thurman rule, named after their revered former
President pro tempore from the Republican side, that you cannot have
any confirmations after the first of July. But, of course, they have
forgotten their own Republican rule when they have a Republican
President. We all know the facts on that, but I think what the American
people have to understand is that because of the time we spent on that,
because of the refusal to even allow 1--even 1--of the 12
appropriations bills to come up for a vote and allow everybody to
either vote for it or against it--and with Republicans having a
majority, if they didn't like anything in it, they could vote it down.
But saying that, no, we want to talk about it, but we are kind of
afraid to actually have to vote on it--I don't know why we are afraid
to vote. That is what we get elected to do.
I have cast over 16,000 votes in this body. Actually, I was told
today that is more than all but 1 of the nearly 2,000 Senators who have
served here.
But what we have done is we have conceded we can't do our most basic
job of completing appropriations bills on time, and in doing that, we
have failed to address an unprecedented health and economic crisis for
months.
Last week more than 870,000 Americans filed for unemployment benefits
for the first time. It is not 870,000 Americans who have filed in the
past; this is 870,000 Americans filing for unemployment benefits for
the first time. That is because of this pandemic.
Kitchen cabinets across the country are bare as families struggle
without enough to eat. Schools do not have enough resources to teach
our children at home or protect them inside the classroom.
This is infuriating. I think Senator Shelby and I could have gotten
those 12 bills. On some parts of them, some would vote for it; some
would vote against it. But we were ready to vote back in June and July.
In the meantime, we now have 200,000 Americans who have died, and we
have yet to vote.
I am afraid that what the President wants to do--and my friends on
the Republican side--is cast aside the desperate needs of the American
people in favor of government on autopilot.
Apparently, right now, they are more concerned with securing a
hyperpartisan Supreme Court than the health and safety of the American
people and are doing the most basic job of Congress. It is that simple.
I will have more to say about the continuing resolution in the coming
days as we move forward toward final passage. But the last thing our
country needs is a government shutdown in the middle of a global
pandemic and an unprecedented economic crisis.
I regret that leadership would not allow us to vote on these
appropriations bills because I am convinced we would have had enough
Republicans and Democrats who would have come together and passed all
12 of them if we had been allowed to vote, even though it means that
some would have to cast difficult votes, but that is what we are here
for.
For this one, while it is far from perfect, I will urge all Members
to vote aye on the motion to proceed
Mr. President, I see my distinguished colleague on the floor is ready
to speak, so I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3983
Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, we are 40 days today from a general
election--40 days--40 days until the American people make their choice,
or at least that is the idea.
But there are a group of people who seem intent on influencing the
people's choice, on manipulating it, on shaping it according to their
own preferences. I am not talking about China or Russia or Iran; I am
talking about a group of corporations--the most powerful corporations
in the history of this Nation, the most powerful corporations in the
history of the world. I am talking about being Big Tech.
We know who they are. They run the giant digital platforms, the
places where Americans communicate and share their opinions. But those
platforms are more than that. They are more than places to talk or buy
things. Facebook and Google, Twitter and
[[Page S5853]]
Instagram and YouTube--these are the platforms that control more and
more of our daily lives.
And, yes, I said ``control.'' These platforms control our social
communication, the way that we talk to each other, when and how, where,
and on what terms. They control what news we read or even what news we
see.
They control more and more journalism in America, right down to what
is in news articles and how the headlines are written.
They control how elected officials communicate with their
constituents, when they can run advertisements, what their messages can
say and can't.
And they want to control us. Big Tech platforms relentlessly spy on
their customers--you and me. They track us around the web. They monitor
our every move online and even when we are offline.
They track our location and whether we are in a car or riding a bike
or on the street. They track the websites that we visit and when. They
track the things that we buy. They track the videos that we watch. They
track what our children are doing. They track everything--all with the
purpose of getting enough information on each one of us to influence
us, to shape our preferences and opinions and viewpoints.
This is enormous power--unheard of power--and the Big Tech platforms
are intent on using it. They are intent on using it in this election.
Let's just cut to the chase: The Big Tech platforms are owned and
operated by woke capitalists. They are leftists. They are liberals.
They are not conservatives. They are no friend to conservatives. They
fervently opposed the election of Donald Trump and other conservatives
in 2016. They fervently oppose it this year.
Now they are trying to use their power to shape the outcome of an
election. For months, the tech platforms have been engaging in
escalating acts of censorship--political censorship--aimed at
conservatives.
They have censored the President of the United States. They have
banned pro-life groups from their sites. They have tried to silence
independent conservative journalists like the Federalist.
Now, the censorship is never against liberals, notice. No, Joe Biden
isn't censored. Pro-choice groups aren't discriminated against. Liberal
news sites, they don't get threatened and bullied and shut out.
No, Big Tech targets conservatives for censorship for a simple
reason: They don't like conservatives. They don't agree with
conservatives. They don't want to see conservatives get elected.
Here is the thing: If they are allowed to use their power in this
way, if they are permitted to leverage their control over news and
information and data to silence the voices of conservatives, then we
will be turning control of our government over to them.
Big Tech targets conservatives for censorship for a simple reason:
They don't like conservatives. They don't agree with conservatives.
We will be turning control of our elections over to them, control of
the Nation over to them. Let's just be clear. No corporation should run
America. No set of corporate overlords should substitute their judgment
for the judgment of ``we the people.'' No woke capitalists should be
able to shape the outcome of an election by silencing speech. That is
why we have to act, and act today.
There is a simple, straightforward solution to the censorship power
of these digital platforms: Let those who have been censored claim
their rights. Let them sue. Let them go to court. Let them challenge
the decisions of the tech platforms and have their day before the bar
of the law. Right now, Federal law prohibits this. It prevents
Americans from challenging the tech platforms and their censorship. It
prevents Americans from challenging just about anything that the tech
companies do.
That should change. That is why today I urge this body to adopt my
legislation, which I have proudly introduced, along with Senators
Rubio, Cotton, Braun, and Loeffler, to give every American who is
unfairly censored the right to have his or her day in court, the right
to stand and be heard, the right to fairness and due process of law.
This is a stand we must take in defense of free speech, in defense of
our elections, but more importantly, above all, in defense of our
democracy and the rule of ``we the people.''
So I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce be
discharged from further consideration of S. 3983 and the Senate proceed
to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the bill
be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I just want to say in the Senate, in my
time in this body, this is one of the most stunning abuses of power I
have seen in my time of public service.
I think my colleague knows that I was sitting until 5 minutes ago in
the Ways and Means Committee, where I was invited to testify about
Social Security, and I was given a message that the Senator from
Missouri was going to stand up and basically try to throw in the
garbage can a bipartisan law that I and a conservative Republican,
former Congressman Chris Cox--well known to conservatives--wrote
because as we thought about the formulation of technology policy, our
big concern was for the little guy, for the person who didn't have
power, the person who didn't have clout.
We were picking up accounts that if they were just trying to come out
with their invention--might be something they put up on a website or a
blog--they could be held personally liable for something that was
posted on their sites that they had no idea about.
So we said: We can't do that to the little guy. We can't strip them
of their voice.
By the way, my concern about the little guy that led to the passage
of this law is something I continue to focus on today.
This law is hugely important to movements like Me Too and Black Lives
Matter because it gives Americans the opportunity to see the messages
they want to get out. We all see the videos. Frankly, establishment
media wouldn't even run a lot of it because they would be sued.
So the original interest in this was making sure that the little guy
had a chance to be heard. That is the interest today. That is what the
Senator from Missouri wants to throw in the trash can. That is No. 1.
No. 2, the effect of what the Senator from Missouri wants to do--and
for colleagues who have just come in, I just learned about this 5
minutes before the Senator from Missouri came to the floor. The net
effect of this is that Donald Trump can force social media--and he is
already working the refs--to print his lies.
The thing that concerned me right at the outset was the lies about
vote-by-mail. He wanted to force Twitter to print his lies about vote-
by-mail. That, too, is something that we sought to constrain in the
bipartisan law. And many people think the 26 words really began a
policy of empowering the little guy to be heard.
Now, I am going to wrap up with just one point. Colleagues, the
Senator from Missouri talks about how he wants to take on Big Tech.
That is his concern. Let's take on Big Tech.
If you want to take on Big Tech, you can go on my privacy bill. It is
called the Mind Your Own Business Act. It is the toughest bill on the
table with respect to Big Tech. It says that if an executive, a CEO, of
one of the big companies, lies and lies repeatedly, they could be held
personally liable, including the prospect of prison time
So if the Senator from Missouri is serious about taking on Big Tech,
I have a bill to do it. That is not what the interest is here. This is
all about Donald Trump wanting to force social media to carry his
political water and to print his lies.
For that reason--and I would have more to say had I been given some
semblance of a courtesy to be able to prepare remarks on this, I would
speak in more detail, but for those reasons, at least those three, I
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Missouri.
[[Page S5854]]
Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I will just say to my friend, the
Democratic Senator describes a world that just doesn't exist. He says
Section 230 protects the little guy? Section 230 protects the most
powerful corporations in the history of the world. Google and Facebook
aren't the little guy. Instagram and Twitter aren't the little guy.
Do you know who is left vulnerable by those mega corporations? The
people who don't have a voice. The people who, when they get
deplatformed, don't have an option. If you are silenced by Google or
Facebook or Twitter, what is your option? None. Nothing. You can't be
heard. You can't go to court. You can't do anything.
Every American should have the right, if they are unfairly
discriminated against because of their political views, to at least be
heard in court.
Section 230, as it exists today and as it is currently being applied,
protects the most powerful corporations. It protects and has protected
human traffickers. It protects some of the worst abuses of free speech
in our society. That is why I will continue to fight to have it
reformed and continue to fight to give the American people a voice.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am told the Senator from Arkansas is up,
and I will be very brief. I appreciate his courtesy.
Once again, the Senator from Missouri is getting it all wrong. He
talks again about how this law--this bipartisan law--is basically not
for the little guy, but he is taking on the big guys. Well, the reason
that is factually wrong is that on this floor, a previous effort was
made to deal with sex trafficking. It was called SESTA and FOSTA, and
the desire was--we are all against this horrible smut online. We are
all against it. The desire was to block it.
As the debate went forward, I and others said: You are not going to
be able to block it. You are going to be able to block Backpage, like
what eventually happened under existing law, which I supported--not
under this new thing.
Well, guess who supported this SESTA-FOSTA deal that is pretty much
like the Senator from Missouri--it was Facebook. Facebook supported the
last effort. Last time I looked, they are a pretty big company. So the
Senator from Missouri is just getting it all wrong here.
I come back to the proposition--I see my friend from Vermont, who has
been really the tech expert here--that what we have always been about
is the little guy, and you see it every day with Me Too, Black Lives
Matter, and so many voices from the community that, because of this
law, can be heard.
I do not--not just on this, because I have objected, so it can't go
forward--I do not accept this idea that this somehow is the path to
solving problems in communications, because under SESTA-FOSTA, which is
really the kind of model the Senator from Missouri is talking about,
the only thing that happened was the horrendous people involved in sex
trafficking went to the dark web, and so now we have an even bigger
problem.
Mr. President, I don't expect this will be the last time we talk
about it, but I would like to repeat to the Senator from Missouri that
if the roles were reversed here and I had an idea that I wanted to
advance, I would extend a courtesy to give him an opportunity to
prepare remarks.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, mercifully, I know of no further debate on
the motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed.
Mr. COTTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr.
Cassidy), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote or change their vote?
The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 195 Leg.]
YEAS--93
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Jones
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Loeffler
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
McSally
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--2
Cruz
Paul
NOT VOTING--5
Capito
Cassidy
Harris
Johnson
Moran
The motion was agreed to.
____________________