SAFE TECH Act

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Safeguarding Against Fraud, Exploitation, Threats, Extremism and Consumer Harms Act, also known as the SAFE TECH Act. I thank my colleagues, Senator Warner and Senator Klobuchar, for working with me on this important piece of legislation, which fulfills the promise of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act by forcing internet companies to finally address the serious harms their platforms cause--harms like civil rights and human rights violations, stalking and harassment, and wrongful death.

Section 230--often called the law that created the internet--was passed in 1996. For some context, in 1996, Google was two years from being founded. Mark Zuckerberg was in middle school. And, the internet effectively shut down for nineteen hours when a technical glitch took American Online offline.

The law was passed with a noble goal in mind: to encourage operators of then-nascent internet message boards to act as ``Good Samaritans'' and voluntarily police illegal and harmful content posted by third parties. Section 230 accomplished this goal by declaring that ``[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.'' These twenty-six words have effectively shielded internet platforms from liability for any harm caused by content posted by third parties for the past twenty-five years.

Unfortunately, whatever incentive Section 230 was meant to provide to encourage internet platforms to police content has proven to be no incentive at all. The statute's broad immunity applies whether a platform carefully reviews each piece of content posted by a user or performs no content moderation whatsoever. It immunizes platforms that have actual knowledge illegal content has been posted. It even applies if the platform itself encouraged the user to post the content. The result has been internet platforms large and small turning a blind eye to the real-world harms they cause.

Let me tell you about a few of those real-world harms.

Over the course of five months in late 2016 and early 2017, Matthew Herrick was harassed and physically assaulted by men directed to his home and office by the gay dating app Grindr. These men--over 1,100 in total--were responding to a fake profile created by Mr. Herrick's ex- boyfriend. Grindr was on notice of both the fake profile and its harmful effects. Mr. Herrick and his friends filed approximately fifty reports with the company reporting the problem and seeking help. But the company did nothing while Mr. Herrick suffered.

On October 21, 2012, Radcliffe Haughton walked into a Wisconsin spa and shot and killed three women, including his estranged wife, and wounded four others before turning the gun on himself. He had purchased the gun the prior day from a private seller he found on the online gun marketplace Armslist.com. He was able to purchase the gun even though his wife had recently obtained a domestic abuse restraining order that specifically prohibited Mr. Haughton from purchasing

a gun. For all intents and purposes, Armslist was designed to facilitate such illegal sales. It precluded users from flagging illegal sales; it allowed people to anonymously purchase guns without a background check; and it enabled prohibited purchasers to search only for sellers that did not check criminal backgrounds or keep records. Mr. Haughton took advantage of these features and, as a result, three people are dead.

On August 25, 2020, 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed two people and injured a third on the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin during a protest of the police shooting of Jacob Blake. Mr. Rittenhouse was one of many armed, right-wing counter-protesters encouraged to travel to Kenosha by a Facebook page run by a group called ``Kenosha Guard'' that asked if any followers would be willing to ``take up arms and defend [the city] from the evil thugs.'' Despite being flagged to Facebook at least 455 times as a call to violence, the company left the page up.

In none of these cases did Grindr, Armslist, and Facebook act like ``Good Samaritans.'' They did not voluntarily police the content on their platforms. Instead, they either actively encouraged or turned a blind eye to dangerous and illegal content knowing full well Section 230 immunized them for any harm their platforms caused. Any attempt by victims to hold the platforms accountable for their roles would be blocked by Section 230.

Under the SAFE TECH Act, this would no longer be the case. This bill would ensure that internet companies either address the serious problems they are causing or face potential liability. It does so by creating targeted exceptions to Section 230's broad immunity, including exceptions for advertisements and other paid content; claims for injunctive relief; civil rights, stalking, and harassment laws; wrongful death actions; and suits under the Alien Tort Claims Act.

Introducing these exceptions to Section 230 does not guarantee that platforms will be held liable in all--or even most--cases where they cause real-world harm. But it will give victims the opportunity to make their case. By doing so, the SAFE TECH Act will punish those bad actors who are actively encouraging or turning a blind eye to dangerous and illegal content, while allowing true ``Good Samaritans'' to flourish online. That was the promise of Section 230. After twenty-five years, it's about time we realize that promise.

I therefore encourage my colleagues to support the SAFE TECH Act.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act.'' I thank Senator Capito for her cosponsorship as well as continued partnership on this important legislation.

This bipartisan bill passed the Senate last Congress by unanimous consent and then passed the House of Representatives in December 2020. Unfortunately, then President Trump chose to veto the bill based on misguided policy and inaccurate data.

I urge my colleagues to once again support this bill, which solely affects California fishery management, but has far-reaching beneficial impacts for a wide range of marine animals, including endangered species. This legislation modernizes a commercial fishery to promote sustainable fishery management and creates a win-win for conservation goals and commercial fishing profitability.

The Issue

Large mesh drift gillnets, as defined in this legislation, have a mesh hole size of 14 inches or greater and are used to target swordfish and thresher shark off the California coast. However, alarmingly, these nets utilized by this one fishery in Federal waters, according to NOAA, are responsible for 90% of porpoise and dolphin deaths in all west coast fisheries combined.

These substantially sized nets are between 1 and 1.5 miles long and extend more than 100 feet below the ocean's surface. This creates a ``net wall'' that ensnares approximately 60 non-target species, known as bycatch, leading to severe harm or drowning of endangered marine turtles, whales, dolphin, and numerous fish species.

In addition to being banned everywhere else in the United States and in

some international waters, these specific nets were also banned in California's state waters in 2018. This bill would bring much needed parity to state and federal laws on the west coast.

After the State ban, a large majority of the remaining commercial fishery using drift gillnet gear voluntarily turned in their permits to the State and received compensation to transition to alternative, sustainable gear, such as deep set buoy gear.

This bill is critically needed to complete the transition of the fishery and provide Federal partnership to the successful State program. The Federal waters off the California coast are the last place in the United States where these dangerous nets are still used.

How our bill would help

This bill is identical to the legislation that passed in the 116th Congress. It provides a common-sense solution by phasing out drift gillnets over a five-year period from enactment in favor of more sustainable alternatives, such as deep-set buoy gear. This sustainable gear has already been proven to yield higher market prices for fishermen and considerably reduces the amount of bycatch.

In fact, 2020 landings data from the PacFIN database for swordfish shows that drift gillnet gear caught only 19.8 metric tons of swordfish at an average of $3.62 per pound yielding a total of $157,728. In the same fishing season, deep set buoy gear caught 79.4 metric tons of swordfish at an average of $5.88 per pound for a total value of $1,028,932. Important to note, deep set buoy gear also had an extremely low bycatch rate--less than 2 percent--illustrating how this fishery can be both more sustainable and profitable.

The transition program includes a grant authorization for Federal funding to match State funds for local fishermen to exchange their current permits and purchase new, sustainable gear.

This bill has broad support at the State and Federal level, as well as national groups such as American Sportfishing Association and Oceana.

In addition, this bill includes a provision important to the Pacific halibut fishery in Alaska that I have worked with Senator Sullivan and the Commerce Committee to include.

The provision would enable the Secretary of Commerce to approve certain charter vessel operators who guide recreational anglers and harvest Pacific halibut in certain federal waters to collect fees that would fund the Recreational Quota Entity Program for the purposes of halibut conservation and research.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to once again pass the ``Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act'', and I urge them to support the swift passage of this bipartisan bill.

Thank you once again to Senator Capito and to Commerce Committee leadership, Senator Cantwell and Senator Wicker for their assistance on this important legislation.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the Floor.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Timely Reauthorization of Necessary Stem Cell Programs Lends Access to Needed Therapies (TRANSPLANT) Act of 2021 with Senators Richard Burr, Tina Smith, and Tim Scott. This bill offers promise to the tens of thousands of individuals diagnosed with leukemia and lymphomas, sickle cell anemia, and rare genetic blood disorders.

Our bipartisan legislation renews the C. W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program and the National Cord Blood Inventory (NCBI), the only programs in the Country that maintain donor registries for individuals in need of a bone marrow and umbilical cord blood transplantation. Over twenty-two million Americans are registered bone marrow donors resulting in nearly 6,500 transplants just last year. In the years since NCBI was established, more than 300,000 cord blood units have been collected, facilitating more than 100,000 blood stem cell transplants. The TRANSPLANT Act would reaffirm the commitment to these life-saving programs, which have been helping to connect individuals in need of bone marrow or umbilical cord blood transplants with donors for more than two decades.

The public registries, made up of donors from all over the country, have been a true lifeline for the Americans who have found an unrelated match. By strengthening and enhancing the important programs operating these registries, many more Americans will be afforded the opportunity to find a match if they are ever in need. I look forward to swift consideration of this legislation in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and working toward passage in the full Senate.