Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to complete my remarks before the vote.

I yield the floor

Mr. President, social media platforms have become a pretty significant part of Americans' lives. We use them to stay up to date on news from friends and family--something that has become especially essential during the pandemic--to communicate with relatives and friends, for entertainment, and as a shopping resource. Social media sites provide ways to network, to connect with like-minded individuals from fellow theater lovers to fellow basketball fans, to advocate for causes that we believe in, to conduct business, even to date, and more and more we rely on social media sites as a primary source of news and information, from Presidential election news to updates on COVID vaccinations.

Social media offers a lot of benefits and opportunities, but the increasing dominance of social media, particularly in the news and information space, has also raised concerns. Consumers have become increasingly troubled about the way their information is used by social media platforms and how these sites decide what news and information we see. And there are increasing numbers of anecdotes to suggest that some social media platforms are moderating content in a biased or political way.

Currently, content moderation on social media platforms is governed by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which was enacted into law 25 years ago. Section 230 provides internet sites that host user-generated content--sites like YouTube or Twitter or Facebook--with immunity for the content that users post on their sites. So, for example, if somebody posts a video on YouTube that contains illegal content, YouTube isn't held legally responsible for that content.

Section 230 has been critical to the development of the internet as we know it today. Without section 230 protections, many of the sites we rely on for social connection or news or entertainment would never have come into being.

But as the internet and social media have grown and developed, it has also become clear that some changes need to be made. In particular, it has become increasingly clear that sites need to provide greater transparency when it comes to their content moderation practices and decisions. Social media sites are no longer just providing a platform for user-generated content as they did in their infancy. They are now making a lot of decisions about that content and carefully shaping our social media experience--what ads we see, what posts we see, what news stories we see.

Currently, Federal law does not require that social media sites be at all accountable to consumers for those content moderation decisions. That is why, today, I am introducing the Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act, or the PACT Act, along with my colleague Senator Schatz. Our bill would preserve the benefits of section 230, like the internet growth and widespread dissemination of free speech it has enabled, while increasing accountability and consumer transparency around content moderation.

Now, content moderation is certainly not all bad. For example, most of us are happy to have YouTube or Instagram suggest additional content that matches the music that we like to listen to or the hobbies that we are interested in. The problem is that content moderation has been and largely continues to be a black box, with consumers having little or no idea how the information they see has been shaped by the sites that they are visiting.

The PACT Act would address this problem by increasing transparency around the content moderation process. Sites would be required to provide an easily digestible disclosure of their content moderation practices for users, and, importantly, they would be required 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. And 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 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. The PACT Act would also require sites to have an appeals process. So if Facebook, for example, removes one of your posts, it would not only have to tell you why, but it would have to provide a way for you to appeal that decision.

We have seen increased concern lately about news articles being removed from social media sites. Under the PACT Act, a newspaper whose article was posted on Facebook or Twitter and then removed by one of those platforms could challenge Facebook or Twitter, which would have to provide a reason for removing the article and allow the newspaper to appeal the decision.

The PACT Act would also help us develop the data necessary to demonstrate whether social media platforms are removing content in a biased or political fashion. As I said earlier, there has been increasing concern about biased content moderation on social media sites. The PACT Act requires detailed transparency reports every 6 months from large social media platforms, like Twitter and Facebook, which will provide the data it needed to determine whether and where biased moderation exists.

The PACT Act would also bolster efforts by State governments to hold social media platforms accountable. The bill would allow State attorneys general to bring civil lawsuits against social media platforms when these platforms have violated Federal civil laws.

The PACT Act would also require companies to remove material that has been adjudicated as illegal by a court. Internet platforms would be required to remove illegal content within 4 days. Failure to remove illegal material would result in the platform's losing its 230 protections for that content or activity, a provision that matches a recommendation made by the Trump Department of Justice for section 230 reform.

I am grateful to Senator Schatz for partnering with me on this legislation. Our bill is a serious, bipartisan approach to the issue of section 230 reform, and it would go a long way toward making social media platforms more accountable to consumers and increasing transparency around the content moderation process.

I invite our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in advancing this legislation.

Mr. President, social media platforms have become a pretty significant part of Americans' lives. We use them to stay up to date on news from friends and family--something that has become especially essential during the pandemic--to communicate with relatives and friends, for entertainment, and as a shopping resource. Social media sites provide ways to network, to connect with like-minded individuals from fellow theater lovers to fellow basketball fans, to advocate for causes that we believe in, to conduct business, even to date, and more and more we rely on social media sites as a primary source of news and information, from Presidential election news to updates on COVID vaccinations.

Social media offers a lot of benefits and opportunities, but the increasing dominance of social media, particularly in the news and information space, has also raised concerns. Consumers have become increasingly troubled about the way their information is used by social media platforms and how these sites decide what news and information we see. And there are increasing numbers of anecdotes to suggest that some social media platforms are moderating content in a biased or political way.

Currently, content moderation on social media platforms is governed by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which was enacted into law 25 years ago. Section 230 provides internet sites that host user-generated content--sites like YouTube or Twitter or Facebook--with immunity for the content that users post on their sites. So, for example, if somebody posts a video on YouTube that contains illegal content, YouTube isn't held legally responsible for that content.

Section 230 has been critical to the development of the internet as we know it today. Without section 230 protections, many of the sites we rely on for social connection or news or entertainment would never have come into being.

But as the internet and social media have grown and developed, it has also become clear that some changes need to be made. In particular, it has become increasingly clear that sites need to provide greater transparency when it comes to their content moderation practices and decisions. Social media sites are no longer just providing a platform for user-generated content as they did in their infancy. They are now making a lot of decisions about that content and carefully shaping our social media experience--what ads we see, what posts we see, what news stories we see.

Currently, Federal law does not require that social media sites be at all accountable to consumers for those content moderation decisions. That is why, today, I am introducing the Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act, or the PACT Act, along with my colleague Senator Schatz. Our bill would preserve the benefits of section 230, like the internet growth and widespread dissemination of free speech it has enabled, while increasing accountability and consumer transparency around content moderation.

Now, content moderation is certainly not all bad. For example, most of us are happy to have YouTube or Instagram suggest additional content that matches the music that we like to listen to or the hobbies that we are interested in. The problem is that content moderation has been and largely continues to be a black box, with consumers having little or no idea how the information they see has been shaped by the sites that they are visiting.

The PACT Act would address this problem by increasing transparency around the content moderation process. Sites would be required to provide an easily digestible disclosure of their content moderation practices for users, and, importantly, they would be required 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. And 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 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. The PACT Act would also require sites to have an appeals process. So if Facebook, for example, removes one of your posts, it would not only have to tell you why, but it would have to provide a way for you to appeal that decision.

We have seen increased concern lately about news articles being removed from social media sites. Under the PACT Act, a newspaper whose article was posted on Facebook or Twitter and then removed by one of those platforms could challenge Facebook or Twitter, which would have to provide a reason for removing the article and allow the newspaper to appeal the decision.

The PACT Act would also help us develop the data necessary to demonstrate whether social media platforms are removing content in a biased or political fashion. As I said earlier, there has been increasing concern about biased content moderation on social media sites. The PACT Act requires detailed transparency reports every 6 months from large social media platforms, like Twitter and Facebook, which will provide the data it needed to determine whether and where biased moderation exists.

The PACT Act would also bolster efforts by State governments to hold social media platforms accountable. The bill would allow State attorneys general to bring civil lawsuits against social media platforms when these platforms have violated Federal civil laws.

The PACT Act would also require companies to remove material that has been adjudicated as illegal by a court. Internet platforms would be required to remove illegal content within 4 days. Failure to remove illegal material would result in the platform's losing its 230 protections for that content or activity, a provision that matches a recommendation made by the Trump Department of Justice for section 230 reform.

I am grateful to Senator Schatz for partnering with me on this legislation. Our bill is a serious, bipartisan approach to the issue of section 230 reform, and it would go a long way toward making social media platforms more accountable to consumers and increasing transparency around the content moderation process.

I invite our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in advancing this legislation.

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

Mr. President, last week I introduced a bill to permanently repeal the death tax.

I have been pushing to repeal the death tax for a long time because I have seen the consequences the tax can have for family farms and ranches and for family businesses. And I am proud that we protected a lot of family farms and businesses 3 years ago with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by doubling the death tax exemption, but the death tax is still a big problem.

First of all, the change we made to the death tax in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act isn't permanent. The increased exemption level expires at the end of 2025.

Second, Democrats, who are always eager to seize any possible revenue source, have proposed not merely returning the exemption to its previous level but reducing it even further. And that would be a big problem for a lot of family farms and businesses.

The death tax is a fundamentally flawed idea, both in theory and in practice. Every American, of course, has an obligation to pay taxes to help support our government, but there should be a limit to how many times the government can tax you. And death should not be a taxable event.

The money you leave at your death has already been taxed by the government at least once, which makes the death tax double taxation.

People who support the death tax tend to talk as if the death tax only affects the fabulously wealthy, but that isn't the case. Small- and medium-sized businesses, family farms, and ranches spend a lot of time and money on estate planning to avoid being hit by this tax. Farmers and ranchers in my State know, without careful and costly planning, the Federal Government can come around after their death demanding a staggering 40 percent of their taxable estate, and their children won't have the money to pay without risking the farm or the ranch. Why? Well, farming and ranching is often a cash-poor business.

A farmer might, technically, be worth several million dollars, but the vast majority of that is land and farming equipment. Only a small fraction of it is money in the bank.

The Farm Bureau reports that over the past 10 years, the value of farmland has increased by nearly 50 percent. It is completely possible that a farmer's land might have substantially increased in value over the past decade, while his income has barely increased at all or, with commodity prices the past few years, they may have been losing money. In fact, it is perfectly possible that in a bad year, a farm with several million dollars' worth of land might barely break even income- wise.

So what happens when a farmer dies? Well, the Federal Government will claim up to 40 percent of his taxable estate. But his liquid assets--in other words, the cash he has available--will likely not come close to covering the tax bill from the Federal Government. And so the only thing left for his children to do will be to start selling off farm equipment and land. In some cases, they will be able to keep the farm, just a smaller version of it. In others, they may have to sell off the family farm entirely. The same thing can happen with family-owned businesses.

In the case of a larger family-owned business, the business owner may be worth $15 or $20 million, but only a small fraction of that may be money in the bank. The vast majority may be tied up in the business. In that case, when the Federal Government comes around demanding 40 percent of the taxable estate, all the money that that business owner had in the bank won't even come close to covering the tax bill.

To pay the Federal Government, the owner's descendants will have to sell off part or all of the family business. And this can happen again and again.

Think about a business that was started half a century ago and passed down from father to daughter, to grandson. With every death, the Federal Government will have come demanding a big chunk of that estate. By the time you get to the third generation, the business may be struggling to stay afloat if it is still around at all.

I recently read testimony from a business owner who stated that, without death tax reform, the family company will end with him. Why? Because the company will have to be sold to meet the tax bill the Federal Government will hand his descendants. The company has already faced the death tax multiple times in its history and given millions upon millions to the Federal Government. This next death tax bill will be the death blow.

I am proud that Republicans improved the death tax situation for a lot of family farms and businesses by passing estate tax reform in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, but doubling the exemption is not enough. There are still family farms and businesses out there that aren't protected from this tax. And in my view, losing even one family farm or ranch or business to the death tax is one too many, not to mention the fact that in less than 5 years, the expanded exemption will expire putting many farms and businesses back in the tax's crosshairs.

Family farms and businesses play a vital role in the economy and in communities. Family farms and ranches are the lifeblood literally of rural communities in South Dakota. They are a source of jobs. They provide support for local businesses. They help build up local schools and local infrastructure. Losing a local farm can hit rural communities very hard.

It is mind-boggling that the Federal Government imposes a tax that punishes all the things we should be encouraging. The death tax punishes hard work. It punishes success. It punishes innovation. ``Success'' should not be a dirty word, and families and employees should not be punished because a family has worked hard and built up a successful farm or ranch or business.

On top of all this, the death tax is an inefficient tax that raises a small amount of revenue while placing a very large burden on farmers and ranchers and small business men and women.

Repealing the death tax is an idea that has won bipartisan support in the past, including support from more than one sitting Democratic Senator. I hope it will win bipartisan support in this Congress as well. And I will continue to fight to ensure that no family farm or business has to worry about this punishing tax.

I said it before, and I will say it again: One family farm or business lost is one too many.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) would have voted ``nay,'' the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``nay,'' and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``nay.''

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

Mr. President, I voted for a number of President Biden's nominees--his nominee for Treasury Secretary, for Defense Secretary, for Attorney General, for Director of National Intelligence, for Agriculture Secretary, and others. These candidates were not the ones I would have picked if I were President, but I believe it is important for our country that our President have a team in place.

As long as a President's nominees aren't raising serious concerns, I think a President of either party is entitled to have the people he or she chooses serving in his or her administration, but by the same token, if a President's nominee does raise serious concerns, I think we have a responsibility as Senators to oppose him or her. Today, I rise to oppose the President's nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services.

A number of President Biden's nominees have been qualified, mainstream candidates. Xavier Becerra is not a mainstream candidate. He is an extremist who has used the offices he has held to advance an aggressively pro-abortion agenda and to target religious liberty and freedom of conscience. Mr. Becerra does not represent the views of the majority of Americans; he represents the views of the radical, pro- abortion wing of the Democratic Party.

The Planned Parenthood wing of the Democratic Party would like Americans to believe that unrestricted abortion on demand up to the moment of birth is a no-brainer, an unqualified good, but the truth is, despite decades of trying to convince Americans of this, Americans simply don't agree.

Just 29 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in all circumstances. The vast majority of Americans believe that abortion should either be illegal or that there should be at least some restrictions, undoubtedly because on some level, every American is aware that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about killing a human being. Mr. Becerra, on the other hand, does not seem to support any restrictions on abortion. If he does, I would sure like to hear about them.

As a Congressman, he earned perfect ratings from Planned Parenthood and NARAL. He assembled an overwhelmingly pro-abortion voting record, even opposing a ban on partial-birth abortion--a procedure so heinous and repulsive, it is difficult to even describe.

As California attorney general, he aggressively crusaded in favor of abortion. He is known for defending California's law forcing crisis pregnancy centers to advertise abortion--a case he lost at the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds. But his activities were hardly limited to California abortion law. This was not a case of an attorney general simply defending the laws of their own State. No. As California attorney general, Mr. Becerra repeatedly--repeatedly--inserted himself into abortion debates in other States. He joined other attorneys general to file amicus briefs challenging abortion laws in Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, and other States, and he frequently led these efforts himself--a fact he proudly highlighted in press releases.

Mr. Becerra's extremist views on abortion would be enough of a red flag, but to that we have to add Mr. Becerra's record on religious liberty and freedom of conscience--most famously his efforts to force religious people, including nuns, to offer health insurance benefits that violate their religious beliefs.

At a Finance Committee hearing, Mr. Becerra tried to downplay his actions in this case. ``I never sued [an order of] nuns,'' he claimed. ``I have [sued] the federal government.'' Well, that is an answer only a lawyer could love. Yes, he didn't sue nuns; he sued the Federal Government to force nuns and other religious people to offer health insurance benefits that violate their consciences. That was the aim of his lawsuit--to force nuns and other religious Americans to act contrary to their consciences.

When an order of nuns, the Little Sisters of the Poor, joined the case in an effort to ensure their right to live according to their faith was protected, Mr. Becerra apparently had no hesitation in continuing his suit.

Mr. Becerra's extremist views on abortion and his record on religious liberty would be troubling in any nominee, but they would matter a lot less if we were talking about a nominee for, say, Secretary of Transportation. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about putting Mr. Becerra in charge of a Cabinet Department entrusted with interpreting and applying laws protecting religious freedom and freedom of conscience.

Nothing I have seen suggests to me that Mr. Becerra can be relied on to provide robust protection for these cherished rights. In fact, I am profoundly concerned that Mr. Becerra would use his office to limit Americans' religious freedom. Under Mr. Becerra's HHS, are nuns going to be forced to offer health insurance benefits that violate their religious faith? Will healthcare professionals be protected from having to perform procedures, like abortions, that violate their consciences?

Given Mr. Becerra's record, I am concerned about the answers to these questions. In fact, there is a reason to be concerned. A prime reason for nominating Mr. Becerra was his radical abortion advocacy and his attacks on religious liberty.

It is difficult to find another reason for nominating Mr. Becerra during a global health emergency. Mr. Becerra is not a doctor. He has not worked in the healthcare field. He is not a virologist or a vaccine expert. He does not have a background in public health. It is not unreasonable to conclude that his appeal to the abortion left, one of the most powerful interest groups in the Democrat Party, was a prime reason for his nomination.

NARAL and Planned Parenthood certainly give credence to that idea with their enthusiastic statements in support of Mr. Becerra, which highlighted his aggressive abortion advocacy. I also have to say that it is pretty interesting to nominate someone to head HHS who, in his last job, proudly sued HHS repeatedly.

I know that President Biden is a man of faith, but he is doing a great disservice to people of faith and to the First Amendment with this nomination. He is also doing a disservice to the American people by nominating a candidate whose views on abortion are so radical and so out of step with the views of most Americans.

Days ago, three of my Democrat colleagues broke ranks with their party to stand up for the many, many Americans who don't want their tax dollars going to pay for abortions. I urge them and all of my colleagues to join me in opposing the nomination of Xavier Becerra.

I yield the floor.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. President, before I begin, I want to take a moment to express my sadness about Senator Blunt's announcement that he will not seek reelection in 2022.

He has been a leader within our conference ever since he came over to the Senate, and he will be sorely missed. I will especially miss having him as a Member of the whip team here in the Senate.

I came to the House of Representatives with Senator Blunt back in the election of 1996. We began our service in January of 1997, and he quickly rose up through the ranks in the House and became the Republican whip in the House of Representatives. He has always been involved in leadership wherever he has been, and his list of achievements is long.

All Americans have benefited over the past year from his tremendous efforts to accelerate coronavirus testing and vaccine development. And less than 2 months ago, in his role as chairman of Rules Committee, he oversaw a very successful inauguration at a particularly challenging time.

The one good thing is that Roy is not leaving us immediately. He will be here for 2 more years, and I look forward to continuing to work with him and to seeing everything that he will accomplish

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan) and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young).

Further, if present and voting. the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young) would have voted ``yea''.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: The Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

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