Floor Statements

The following Senators are necessarily absent the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, Democrats continue to negotiate with each other on their reckless tax-and-spending spree. Democrats are currently working to lower the bill's top-line number in an effort to meet some of the demands of the few moderate Democrats who have reservations about unchecked government spending.

Now, you might think that lowering the top-line number would involve deciding what programs and spending to eliminate to bring the bill in at a lower cost. Well, not exactly. Yes, Democrats are reportedly eliminating some spending, but the word is that, under pressure from progressives, who are dead set against curtailing their plans for expanding government, Democrats are planning to keep a lot of their most expensive proposals, but simply shorten the funding window to make the costs of these programs seem lower.

Take Democrats' fantastically expensive child allowance. Democrats have every intention of turning their child allowance into a permanent government welfare program, but in order to bring the top-line number of their spending bill down, the word is that Democrats are now planning to officially extend the allowance for just 1 year.

This is, in fact, a budget gimmick on top of a budget gimmick, as Democrats were already attempting to disguise the true cost of the child allowance by officially extending it for just 4 of the 10 years in the bill's 10-year budget window.

They were never, of course, planning to eliminate the child allowance after 4 years, and they are certainly not planning to eliminate it now after 1 year, but by officially extending it for just a year in their tax-and-spending spree, they can manage to make the program look as if it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars less than it will actually cost.

And they are apparently repeating this strategy with a number of their other spending measures.

That paid leave program? Apparently, the White House has proposed a smaller version that would supposedly expire after 3 or 4 years.

Those childcare subsidies? Apparently, those may also now, ostensibly, expire.

The ObamaCare subsidies Democrats want to extend permanently? Well, once again, it sounds like they are going to try shrinking the apparent cost with a short-term extension.

But, again, let's be very clear here. These short-term extensions and short-term programs are nothing more than a budget gimmick to disguise the true cost of the Democrats' plan. There isn't one program that I have named that Democrats don't fully intend to make permanent.

Don't believe me? Just ask the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which outlined the strategy the Democrats are currently adopting in a letter to Speaker Pelosi.

I quote from that letter:

If given a choice between legislating narrowly or broadly--

the caucus wrote--

--we strongly encourage you to choose the latter, and make

robust investments over a shorter window . . . This will help

make the case for our party's ability to govern, and

establish a track record of success that will pave the way

for a long-term extension of benefits.

So the plan is to make these programs permanent and to permanently and massively expand the size of government. Democrats hope to get Americans hooked on the government benefits they are offering while hiding the true costs of those benefits from the American people until it is too late.

Frankly, it is not a bad strategy if your aim is to permanently expand the size of government because the truth is it is pretty hard to eradicate even the most inefficient and ineffective Federal program once it has been put into place.

As Ronald Reagan used to say, the nearest thing to eternal life that we will ever see on this earth is a government program.

That, of course, is what the Democrats are counting on. They believe that, once they put these programs in place, no one from either party will be able to get rid of them.

What is less clear is how Democrats believe these programs are going to be funded in the long term, if, in fact, they have given any thought to that issue at all. I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't.

It is important to note that the short-term programs and program extensions in the Democrats' tax-and-spending spree will be paid for by 10 years of taxes. That is right. It will take 10 years of taxes and other revenue-raising measures to pay for programs that are scheduled to last as little as 1 year.

So what happens when Democrats want to extend that child allowance again next year or extend those childcare subsidies for the long term?

Well, that is a really good question, and one for which I would love to hear the Democrats' answer.

Are Democrats going to trot out more tax hikes to pay for extending the child allowance or making the childcare subsidies permanent? Or are they going to just suggest that we add hundreds of billions--and eventually trillions--to our already dangerously large national debt? And, if they opt for tax hikes, just who is going to be facing those tax hikes?

The Democrats are eventually going to run out of money from millionaires and billionaires, and then they are going to start coming after the wallets of the middle class.

Of course, when I say that the programs in the Democrats' tax-and- spending spree will be paid for with 10 years of taxes, I mean that Democrats are claiming--claiming--that those programs will be paid for, because it is by no means clear that Democrats' tax hikes and revenue- raising measures will actually result in the revenue they are claiming.

Democrats, for example, are claiming that their proposal to increase IRS enforcement measures, including a new requirement that would allow the IRS to look into the details of Americans' spending, will allow them to collect $700 billion in revenue; but the Congressional Budget Office hasn't confirmed that estimate, and there is substantial reason to doubt that Democrats will be able to collect anywhere even close to that amount even with a doubling of the IRS's budget, a massive expansion of a number of IRS employees, and a number of audits of everyday Americans.

Even if Democrats do manage to rake in every dollar they are claiming, the tax hikes and revenue raisers they are proposing would have long-term costs beyond the dollar amount of the tax hikes.

More than one of the Democrats' tax proposals would have a chilling effect on investment and economic growth, which would mean a less vibrant economy with fewer jobs and opportunities for American workers, and the IRS proposal I mentioned could put the details of Americans' ordinary bank activities into the hands of the IRS, an agency that we have seen repeatedly mishandle the taxpayer data it already has, as recently as earlier this year.

Democrats may be able to come up with a smaller top-line number by hiding the true costs of the government programs they are contemplating, but their ``buy now and pay later or pay never'' approach to government spending is going to have serious consequences for our economy and for the American people.

Unfortunately, by the time the full costs of Democrats' massive government expansion are felt, it may be too late to do much about it; and that, apparently, is what Democrats are counting on.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Further, is present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. President, social media has become a big part of a lot of Americans' lives: TikTok, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram.

People turn to social media for connection, for entertainment, to stay on top of the news, for pictures of the grandkids, for workout routines, and new recipes.

Social media offers a lot of benefits and opportunities, but it is becoming ever more clear that social media has a darker side as well. Social media use can have a negative effect on mental health. It can foster negative and divisive engagement and serve as an outlet for illegal activity, from child pornography to human trafficking. It can have a particularly detrimental effect on the still-developing psyches of teenagers.

The Wall Street Journal recently published a series of disturbing reports based on the information of a Facebook whistleblower provided that highlighted everything from the use of Facebook for criminal activity in developing countries to the company's own research showing the negative impact Instagram can have on teenager girls.

Two weeks ago, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing where we heard firsthand from the Facebook whistleblower about the concerns that led her to come forward. And next week, the Commerce Committee will be holding a hearing with witnesses from Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube, examining how these companies treat younger users.

A recent Wall Street Journal investigation into TikTok revealed how easy it is for younger users to be bombarded with wildly inappropriate content, from videos promoting drug use to disturbing sexual content.

One major problem with social media that came through, once again, in the recent Commerce hearing and in the Wall Street Journal's recent revelations is social media platforms' use of algorithms to shape users' experiences.

Gone are the days when you logged into Facebook and just consumed content that had been posted chronologically since your previous login. Now Facebook and other social media platforms use algorithms to shape your news feed and suggestions for additional content, emphasizing posts the platforms think you will be interested in and de-emphasizing other posts.

Now, algorithms can be useful, of course. If you are looking for YouTube videos on how to build a bookshelf, you will probably appreciate it if YouTube suggests additional videos on how to build a bookshelf rather than videos on how to roast a turkey or sink the perfect jump shot.

But algorithms have a problematic aspect as well. For starters, many people aren't aware just how much their experiences on these platforms are being manipulated and the negative emotional effects that that manipulation can have.

Disclosure on these platforms can be confusing or nonexistent, so individuals can be largely unaware that the immense amount of personal data that social media platforms collect is being used to decide what posts they are being shown, what ads they are being offered, and more.

Individuals end up being trapped in what has been termed the ``filter bubble''--their own world of filtered search results and tailored content. This can lead to everything from political polarization, as users are presented with a narrow, one-sided view of current affairs, to addictive behavior, as the platform doubles down on troubling content that users have shown an interest in.

As the Wall Street Journal's recent articles on Facebook and TikTok demonstrate, the filter bubble can be particularly troubling in the case of younger social media users who may watch an inappropriate video and soon find that their feed is filled with similar material. In many ways, the filter bubble can and does shape a user's choices and behavior.

As the former Commerce Committee chairman and current ranking member of the Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and Broadband, I have been following these issues for a while and have developed two bipartisan bills--the Filter Bubble Transparency Act and the PACT Act-- that I think would go a long way toward addressing the problems posed by social media platforms.

My Filter Bubble Transparency Act, which is cosponsored by Senators Blumenthal and Blackburn, among others, would allow social media users to opt out of the filter bubble. In other words, it would allow them to opt out of the filtered experience tailored for them by opaque algorithms and, instead, see an unfiltered social media feed or search results that aren't based on the vast amount of information a platform has on them.

Facebook, for example, would be required to provide a clear notification to users that their content is being shaped by algorithms. Then Facebook would be required to provide users with an easily accessible option to see a chronological news feed instead of a news feed powered by opaque algorithms that emphasize the posts that Facebook wants you to see.

My Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act--or the PACT Act--which I introduced with Senator Schatz, would also increase social media transparency. It would require sites to provide an easily digestible disclosure of their content moderation practices for users, and it would address censorship concerns by requiring sites to explain their decisions to remove material to consumers.

Until relatively recently, sites like Facebook and Twitter would remove a user's post without explanation and without an appeals process. Even as platforms start to shape up their act with regard to transparency and due process, it is still hard for users to get good information about how content is being moderated.

Under the PACT Act, if a site chooses to remove your post, it has to tell you why it decided to remove your post and explain how your post violated the site's terms of use. Then it has to provide a way for you to appeal that decision. The PACT Act would also explore the viability of a Federal program for Big Tech employees to blow the whistle on wrongdoing inside the companies where they work.

We learned a lot from Frances Haugen, the Facebook whistleblower who spoke to the Commerce Committee 2 weeks ago, and I believe that we should encourage employees in the tech sector to speak up about questionable practices of Big Tech companies so that we can, among other things, ensure Americans are fully aware of how social media platforms are making use of artificial intelligence and individuals' personal data to keep them hooked on their platforms.

As I said earlier, social media offers a lot of benefits--I think we all acknowledge that--but with the ever-increasing role that it plays in Americans' lives, it is essential that consumers understand exactly how social media platforms are using their information and shaping the news that they see and the content that they interact with.

And I am hopeful that the recent troubling revelations about Facebook and TikTok published by the Wall Street Journal will create an impetus for bipartisan action on social media transparency.

I am grateful to have bipartisan cosponsors for both the Filter Bubble Transparency Act and the PACT Act, and I look forward to working with my cosponsors to get these bills passed in the near future.

Big Tech has operated in the dark for too long. It is time to shed some light on content moderation.

I yield the floor.