Josh Hawley

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for his perspective, which I always appreciate, and, of course, I appreciate working with Senator Johnson on some of the issues. On this issue, I am afraid we are just going to have to differ, and I just want to say this: Nothing could be more targeted and no relief could be more important than relief for working people. The Senator is right; this body has spent trillions of dollars this year alone on COVID relief. We are getting ready to spend, apparently, another trillion dollars more. Yet working people are told they may be last--if they get relief at all. I don't think the American people understand that. I know people in Missouri don't understand it, and I would just urge Members of this body: Go home and try explaining that to the people of your State. Go ahead. Just try it. Try telling them why this body can bail out the banks. We bailed out the banks to such a tune that now they have money left over. Now we are going to take money back because we spent so much on Wall Street and the banks in the first part of this year. That is right. In fact, now I understand that my Democratic colleagues don't want to shut down all of the bank money. Who knows what we might be able to do with that in the future? Oh, they are fine. They are more than fine. They are doing great. Now Wall Street is doing great. Big tech, they are doing great; the big multinational corporations, fantastic. Working people--working people are living in their cars. Working people can't go to the doctor. Working people can't pay their rent. Working people can't feed their children. They should be first, not last. And it is no answer for this body to tell them: Go get in an unemployment line. Really? That is the response? Go get in an unemployment line. No, the working people of this country, frankly, deserve better. They deserve to be the top priority just like they have made this country the top priority in their lives and their families. This is not the end of this fight. I am here right now on this floor. Senator Sanders will be back in a matter of hours to ask again for the same measure. Again, I have been proud to partner with him on this effort, and I will keep working with whomever it takes for however long it takes until we get the working people of this country relief. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAWLEY

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

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, last week, I came to this floor on two separate occasions with Senator Sanders to talk about the need for direct assistance to working families in my State--in the State of Missouri--and all across this country. I said that I was willing to use every tool at my disposal to make sure that this body acted to give direct assistance to working people in need as part of COVID relief. I said then, and I say it again today, that working people should be first in line for COVID relief, not last. They should be the first consideration, not some afterthought. I am pleased to report that we were told today, as negotiations are ongoing about a COVID relief bill, that direct assistance to working people and working families is in the bill, that working people will be getting assistance. I want to say once again here on this floor, as that package continues to take shape, how important it is that working families be able to count on some relief and how important it is for this body to prioritize working people over government, over big businesses, over government programs, and to give assistance directly to the people themselves. Look, people know how to spend their money and what is best for their own families. The quickest way to help people in need is to give them direct assistance and let them make the choices for their own families, for their own kids, not to have to wait in line for some program, not to have to talk to some bureaucrat but to be able to make their own choices direct, with assistance that comes direct to them. That is going to be in this bill, I understand. I am sure as heck going to continue to fight to see that it is in the bill and that any relief that is passed by the Senate prioritizes working people with direct relief. Some have questioned whether this is really necessary. Some have said: Well, it is not an emergency, and this bill is only for emergencies, and direct assistance isn't an emergency. To that I say: Is it not an emergency that working people are having to line up for food--literally, line up for food--in this country, in this day and age, because they don't have enough money to go purchase nutrition for their own children? Just think about what is happening in my own State. Let me tell you about Monark Baptist Church in Neosho, MO, down in Southwest Missouri. They had a food distribution program. They have done this for years, by the way, but as COVID intensified this past year, they stood up their efforts. Neighbors came together and donated. They got all the food that they could. They went out there in Neosho, MO--not a huge town. Monark Baptist Church went out and started distributing food. Do you know they distributed food to hundreds of families for hours. When they had run out of the food, there were over 50 cars--not individuals, cars. Fifty cars were still in line, as far as the eye could see, having driven miles and miles around from neighboring counties to come for the help. These are working people. These are not folks who want some handout. These are working people. These are proud people. These are people who don't want government to do stuff for them. They want to be able to get back up on their own feet and provide for themselves. Government shut down their businesses and took away their jobs this past year and put them in this position of, in some cases, outright desperation. Let me tell you about a gal from Kansas City, 22 years old. Her first name is Mars. I won't share her last name just for her own privacy. You know, she has talked to me and told me about her plight. She moved to Kansas City earlier this year, right around the time the pandemic started. She got an apartment. She was getting set up and getting going. Then, the pandemic hit. Then, the shutdown hit. Then, she lost her job. Then, she lost her plumbing. The water wouldn't work. She complained to the landlord. They wouldn't do anything. The ceiling collapsed. The landlord wouldn't do anything. Then she didn't have enough money to make rent, and, the other day, she woke up with a 10- day eviction notice out on her front door. These are people who need help, not because they don't know how to work but because they do know how to work and the government has put them in the position that they are facing today. This pandemic has put them in the position they are facing today. What they want is the ability to get back up on their own two feet and to provide for themselves by the work of their own hands. That is what direct assistance to working families will do. So to those who say it is not an emergency, I urge you to open your eyes and to look around at the people who are hurting, who are struggling, who are desperate for help. I have heard that it is said: Well, it is not stimulative. What a word--direct assistance isn't stimulative, as if the American people are knobs and dials to be twisted and turned around to get a desired outcome, as if the economy is something to be micromanaged in Washington, DC. I am not interested in stimulus. I am interested in helping working people survive. I am not interested in micromanaging this economy. I am interested in getting working people back up on their feet so they can manage their own lives. That is what this is about. That is why the need is so great. That is what we are trying to accomplish. We have a chance to do this, to get this done, to get accomplished here something that we can be proud of before Christmas, to send a message to the American people that they matter, to send a message to working people in my State and in every State in this Country that they matter and that we are here fighting for them; that we look forward to the day when they are back at work, ready to work, able to support themselves and their families, and that we are on the path to getting there. That is the message that we can send. That is the message that we must send. I will not leave this body until it is accomplished. I promise you this. If I have anything to say about it, we will not be leaving here before Christmas until direct assistance is on the way to the working people of this Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, had there been a rollcall vote on H.R. 8900, the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021, I would have voted no

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this is a very simple thing that we are talking about, and I can boil it down real easily. If the Senate of the United States can find hundreds of billions of dollars to give to big government and big business, surely it can find some relief for working families and working individuals. And I would just submit to you that it is working families and working people who should be first in line for COVID relief, not last. That is why the amendment that Senator Sanders and I have proposed is so common sense--$1,200 for individuals, $2,400 for families, $500 for every child--and as Senator Sanders rightly said, every Member of this body has voted yes, in favor of this relief before. What is more, I can't figure who exactly is opposed to it. The President of the United States has said that he is in favor of direct assistance. I thank the majority leader for his own support of direct assistance. The Speaker of the House says she is in favor of direct assistance. And that is why there is no reason why this body should leave next week before we vote on and approve direct assistance to working families. Now, let me just say one other thing. Let me tell you about a phone call I had with a friend of mine at home when this Congress approved direct assistance back in March. He texted me, and then he called me and he said: I am seeing this news about relief that we are going to maybe get a check. Is that real? I said: Yeah, that is real. He said: Well, I don't know. I am worried about taking it. I mean, what if we spend the money? I mean, we could use the money, but what if we spend it, and I can't pay it back? You know, it comes back and now I have got to pay it back? I said: You don't have to pay it back. It is relief, because you need it, because you are working. This is a guy who works in concrete. That is his business. And he said: Are you serious, now? You are serious that we can keep this money? I can use this for my family. I said: That is exactly what it is for. And his comment to me was--his words were: Man, this is a godsend. There are families like that not just all over Missouri, not just all over Vermont, but all over this Nation, and they are in need today like they were in need in March. It is incumbent upon this body to act, and we should not leave until we do that. So having reserved the right to object, today, I do not object. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, July 19, 2018, is a date that we in Missouri won't ever forget. There were 17 people who lost their lives and 11 who were injured in a boating accident on Table Rock Lake. During a severe thunderstorm, a duck boat called Stretch Duck 7 sank with 31 people aboard, including children. Today marks 875 days since that tragedy. To the families and friends who lost loved ones that day, I am sure that every one of those 875 days since has come with a new and painful reminder of your loss. I am here today to honor those who lost their lives, the 17 victims of that tragedy--a tragedy that should never have happened--and also to honor the survivors who live with the memory of that tragedy every day. They deserve to be remembered. They deserve to be respected by this body, and I am here to do something about it. The time has come to act. I am here to ask this body to do its job and finally pass my bill that will impose tough, new security restrictions and measures on every duck boat operation in America. This is a bill I introduced almost 2 years ago that passed the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation unanimously. Now, truth be told, it has taken this body far too long to act. The tragedy in Missouri may have been one of the more recent duck boat tragedies, but it is far from the first. In 1999, 13 people were killed when a duck boat sank during a tour of Lake Hamilton in Arkansas. In the years since, the death toll has climbed to over 40. In 2001, there was a duck boat accident in Seattle, WA. In 2010, a tugboat on the Delaware River in Philadelphia collided with a duck boat. In 2013, a duck boat caught fire in the San Francisco Bay. I could go on. Now, the National Transportation Safety Board has issued numerous recommendations to improve duck boat safety, and it has issued many of these recommendations multiple times. The U.S. Coast Guard, which regulates these crafts, has recently concurred with quite a number of these recommendations. Yet, to be frank, we need more than recommendations. We need more than studies and surveys. We need laws. It has been 875 days, and we have seen investigation after investigation conclude the same thing: that lives could have been saved if action had been taken--if this body had acted, if the security measures had been put in place. The time for delay has passed, and the time to act is now in order to save future lives and to make sure that the tragedy that happened in Branson is not repeated again in Missouri or in any other State. My legislation would take those recommendations and put them into law. It includes provisions to ensure that duck boats remain buoyant during flooding. It requires dangerous canopies to be removed. It requires life jackets for passengers. My legislation would also ensure that duck boats would not go out during severe weather and also require the operators of duck boats to know what the weather is--a commonsense provision but one not currently required under the law. I thank Senator Blunt, Senator Cotton, and Senator Duckworth for supporting this legislation and for their strong support for lifesaving provisions. I thank Chairman Wicker for moving this bill through the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, where, once again, it received unanimous support. Now it is time to make it the law of the land. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of S. 1031 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. HAWLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the Hawley substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with Senator Sanders in this important legislation. It is very simple legislation, and this is, to my mind, a very simple proposition. Here is the proposition: that when it comes to COVID relief in the midst of this crisis, working families and working people should be first to get relief, not last. Their interests, their needs should be first on our to-do list, not last. Now, I have heard some of my colleagues say that there just isn't enough left for working families; that once we take care of our other priorities in COVID relief, there just isn't enough left to give direct assistance to individuals. I want to respectfully suggest that those priorities are exactly reversed. We should begin with the working people of this country, and that is why the legislation that Senator Sanders and I are introducing, which I believe every Senator voted for in March--it is simple legislation--$1,200 for each individual, $2,400 for a couple, and $500 for every dependent in the family. It is exactly what this Congress approved overwhelmingly back in March, and it was, indeed, a lifeline. I know it was for Missourians in my State, for working families in my State. I remember, in the hours and days after Congress passed this in March, fielding call after call after call from friends, from people I didn't know in my State but whom I represent, who called me to say: First of all, is it really true? Are we actually going to be getting this support? And then just to say thank you. And I said: Don't thank me. Thank you for being the ones who have built this country, the ones who sustain this country, the ones on whom this country depends. And I will just say also, as a matter of fairness--if the U.S. Government is going to shut down your business, if it is going to tell you to go home for health reasons, if it is going to give you no choice in the matter, I think that there is an obligation to support and help the people who are affected, through no fault of their own. Let's be clear. The millions of Americans who are out of work because of this pandemic, they haven't done anything wrong. The 853,000 Americans who today, the new numbers tell us, filed for unemployment benefits, they are not at fault in this pandemic. We want to support and stand with working individuals and working families. I want the working people of Missouri to know that they are first on the priority list, and when it comes to COVID relief, we will not leave this town until we have voted--up or down--until we have voted on direct relief for working people in my State, in Senator Sanders's State, and in every State in this Union. With that, I thank Senator Sanders, and I yield back.

Mr. HAWLEY

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

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, in a few moments, we are going to be voting on a series of nominations to the Federal Election Commission, one of which is of personal interest to me. It is the nomination of Sean Cooksey to be a Commissioner of that body. I know Sean personally because I have had the great privilege of working with Sean for the last 2 years while he has served as the general counsel in my office. Sean is a native Missourian. He comes from the eastern part of the State, just north of St. Louis. He is a proud graduate of Truman State University in the State of Missouri. He comes from a working family there in the State, and his family still lives there. Sean has rendered exceptional service to me this last year and a half. In fact, when I came to the Senate not even 2 years ago, I have to say Sean had more experience than I did, having served in this body for several years before in the office--on the staff of Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. Sean has done absolutely outstanding work in the last year and a half in my office helping us pass important legislation, including my first bill signed into law in the Senate, the Supporting and Treating Officers in Crisis Act. This is a law that will direct new funding to police officers and other law enforcement all across the State of Missouri and across the Nation to get the help and support they need when they are exposed to violence, when they are exposed to situations that require followup help, counseling. It gets them the resources especially in small and local police departments in rural areas, like those across my State. Sean was instrumental in drafting this legislation and in getting it passed. It was a proud day almost a year and a half ago when President Trump signed that bill into law. This is just one example of the outstanding service Sean has rendered not just to my office but to the people of Missouri and not just to the people of Missouri but to the people of the United States. That is why, while I am sorry to see Sean go on a personal level, I am absolutely delighted for the country because my loss is going to be the gain of the United States of America. I want to congratulate Sean on this nomination and what I think will soon be his confirmation in just a few moment's time. I want to congratulate his family. I know this is a very proud day for them. I believe Sean will be the youngest member of the Federal Election Commission, maybe in the history of this body. I can't think of anyone more deserving. I know that he will render distinguished service to the country in this capacity. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, in recognition of his outstanding service to my office this last year, I ask unanimous consent that Captain Ryan Albin, the defense fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, some months ago, in July of this year, I came to this floor shortly after the conclusion of the Supreme Court's most recent term to lament the ongoing judicial activism--the judicial imperialism--that we have seen from this Court over this past term and from the Supreme Court for years on end. I quote the late Justice Scalia who said: ``The imperial judiciary lives.'' I said on the floor of this Senate--and it was a shame to say but was undeniable--that the imperial judiciary continued to live in this country--a judiciary intent and a Supreme Court intent on legislating from the Bench, on making up laws that went along with no regard for what the people actually wrote in their statutes or in their laws. I particularly lamented the position of religious conservatives, of people of faith, who had seen in this past term from the U.S. Supreme Court decision after decision that tossed aside the concerns of religious conservatives and faithful Americans and who had watched the Supreme Court legislate and depart from the text of written laws with barely any concern for the effects on religious liberties. In fact, it tossed aside concerns about religious liberty, religious freedom, and in one or two lines of opinions, the effect on religious institutions. This is what we have been seeing from the U.S. Supreme Court. Religious conservatives have come to a place of asking: What is it that we are fighting for? What is it that we have been working for and voting for all of these years? Is anybody actually listening to us? Do our votes really matter? Those are the questions that religious conservatives were asking in July of this year, and that is why the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States comes as such historic and welcomed news to people of faith in this country, to religious conservatives, and to all who believe in the rule of law in America. The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett is truly historic. This is the most openly pro-life judicial nominee to the Supreme Court in my lifetime. This is an individual who has been open in her criticism of that illegitimate decision Roe v. Wade. She is a nominee who has been open about her faith and her faith commitments and the way she and her husband live their lives--immersed in their Catholic faith--and raise their children in their Catholic faith and want others to have the freedom to be able to do the same. Her nomination and, I anticipate, her confirmation tonight, in just a few hours on this floor, will show that there is nothing wrong with any of that. In fact, people of faith should be welcomed on the Supreme Court of the United States, and people of Judge Barrett's convictions should be welcomed on the Supreme Court of the United States. In just a few hours, with the vote of this body, we will confirm that this is, indeed, the case. I have to say that Judge Barrett's own positions and her convictions give me great confidence that she understands the difference between judging and legislating--that she will not be a judicial imperialist as I have talked about on this floor in months past. Now, I said earlier this year that I would not vote for a Supreme Court nominee who did not understand the difference between judging, on the one hand, and legislating on the other and that I would not vote for a judicial imperialist. I specifically singled out Roe v. Wade and said that I would not vote for a Supreme Court nominee who did not understand that Roe was an act of judicial imperialism and that, indeed, I wanted to see record evidence that the nominee understood that Roe was an act of judicial imperialism and understood the difference between legislating from the Bench and actually adhering to the Constitution and the laws. I am proud to support the nomination and confirmation of Judge Amy Barrett because her record makes abundantly clear that she understands the role of a judge and that she understands the role that the Constitution assigns to the judiciary. It is not the role of legislating. It is not the role of imposing policy preferences or personal views. It is the role of following the law. Her record indicates that she understands that and is committed to following that role and committed to reviving that approach, that constitutional approach to judgment--that she will fight for it and revive it on the Supreme Court of the United States. So I am delighted to support her nomination. I am delighted to have someone of her convictions. I am delighted to have someone who has taken the stances that she has taken as a legal practitioner, as an academic, and as a judge. Yes, that includes her position on life, and, yes, that includes her position on Roe. We will set a precedent tonight that people of faith and people of the convictions that Judge Barrett has and shares are welcomed in this country in every office. They are welcomed on the highest Court in the land, and we need not ask people of convictions to give up those convictions in order to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. We need not say: Oh, you have to scrub your personal views. Oh, you have to pretend that you don't have religious faith or you have to pretend that it doesn't matter to you. You have to renounce your past record. We do not have to do any of that. What we have to ask them to do is to understand the difference between judging and lawmaking. What we have to ask them to do is to understand their role that the Constitution assigns them. We have to ask them to be committed to following the law. I am convinced, based on her record, that Judge Barrett will do exactly that. For those reasons, I am delighted to support her confirmation, and I look forward to this historic vote in just a few hours' time. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I am here to talk about who runs America--the big tech giants or the American people? I am here to talk about the big tech oligarchs' attempts to install themselves as the de facto ruling class of this country, to usurp the power of the people, and I am here to talk about what we can do about it. For years, the tech giants--Google, Facebook, Twitter--they have spied on us without our knowledge; they have taken our private information without our consent; and they have used all of it to manipulate us and turn massive profits in which the American people have had no share. That is their business model. It is like the strip mining of America. But now, not content with exploiting and extracting, the tech monopolies want to control our news and opinions, and they want to intervene in a Presidential election For the better part of a week, the tech giants have been actively suppressing the reporting of Alexander Hamilton's newspaper, the New York Post. And why? Well, because they don't like the story and they don't want people to read it and they are willing to use their power to stop the distribution of a story written by the free press in this country. Now this isn't about Hunter Biden's emails, though those are important, and we deserve to know whether Hunter Biden was giving his father kickbacks on payments from foreign oligarchs in exchange for changes to American foreign policy. But this is about something even more than that. This is about whether a small handful of corporate executives--Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Sergey Brin, and Larry Page--whether they get to decide who is allowed to see what; which newspapers are allowed to break the big stories and which ones are censored; which political party will get bad news suppressed at the height of the election season and which one will get it amplified. And most important, it is about you. It is about what normal, everyday Americans get to see. It is about what you get to say. It is about the news you read in your news feeds and the content that comes to you in your notifications and your video playlist because, yes, the tech companies control all of those things, and they use them to try to shape what you are thinking--even how you are feeling. Oh, yes, they have run experiments on all of that. They have run experiments on how to manipulate the content that they control and deliver to you in order to manipulate your emotions and influence your views and influence how you feel and what mood you are in, and, yes, what Presidential candidate you favor. It is their roller coaster, and we are all just riding on it. That is their world. That is the world that they want. That is the America that they want. The struggle against the tech giants is a struggle for control. Do the tech platforms control America or do we control them? And it is time the U.S. Senate did something about it. This body is supposed to represent the people of this Nation. This body is supposed to defend the people's interests, but for too long this body has done the bidding of Big Tech. It has given tech lavish government handouts and then looked the other way while tech captured one government agency after another. Do you know a recent news report found that the FTC, the body in charge of enforcing--supposedly--much of our antitrust law and our competition law, that two-thirds of the FTC's employees have conflicts of interest related to tech? That is good old-fashioned government capture by Big Business, by the megacorporations, and that is exactly what has been going on in Washington for years right under the nose of the U.S. Senate. And if we are being honest, it is really no surprise. Tech has spent outrageous sums of money--outrageous sums of money--to purchase influence in the Capitol of the United States. It is time for those days to end. This body must act in defense of the American people, and we can. We can tear down the main pillars of Big Tech's power. We don't have to tolerate their monopolies. We don't have to accept their stranglehold over speech and our data and our news and our personal information and our social communications. We can force them to change the way they do business rather than allowing them to force us to change how we think. We can ban manipulative ads, and we should. We can repeal the immunity shield. We can crack down on addictive platform design. And I have introduced plenty of legislation over the last 22 months to do all of that, and I am still waiting for a vote on almost all of it. Heck, I am still waiting for hearings on any of it. If this body is not ready or willing to say that these platforms need to change the essence of what they do, well, then let's at least tell them that they cannot censor us with impunity. Let's at least make them live up to their word when they tell us that they want open conversation. Let's at least tell them that if they violate their promises to us and if they censor us arbitrarily, that we can have our day in court to fight back. Let's at least put some power back in the hands of the American people to fight the tech giants, and let's allow Americans to have their day in court. And that is why I am moving this legislation here, now, today on this floor, to provide every American that right. We should get this done now. There should be no further delays. And let's haul those tech executives in to testify under oath about what they did last week and at whose behest. Let's get binding commitments from them, under penalty of perjury, about how they will do their work in the short remaining days of this election season and about the future of their censorship policies. Let's get the truth out of them. I would just say to my fellow Republicans, we are supposed to be the opponents of concentrated power. That is what the fight against Big Government has been about all along. So what have we been doing with our Senate majority to fight the greatest concentration of power Americans face today? What have we been doing to confront this great threat to American democracy? Let's just tell the truth. The truth is many Members of the Republican establishment love Big Tech. They love Big Tech. The think tanks love the money that Big Tech contributes to them. The lobbyists love the work that they provide. It is a gravy train. The politicians love the cheap ads that they get to run on Facebook. Now, Washington, DC, does really well under the current arrangement-- really well. Big Tech works really well for Washington. Heck, Big Tech owns half the town. But if you are an everyday American, if you are an independent journalist, if you are a pro-life advocate, if you are somebody who doesn't have the approval of Big Tech, if you are somebody who doesn't have an inside track to the good graces of the tech giants, well, the message to you is really simple: Do what tech tells you to do or they will silence you. No corporation should run America, and definitely not Big Tech. We have squandered precious time already. The tech giants have been allowed to grow too powerful, too big. Now we must act while we still have time remaining and stand up and be counted before it is too late. Madam President, as if in legislative session, 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.

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I would agree that it is a problem that we can't get hearings or votes on serious tech legislation. That is a problem. The Senator makes my point. That is exactly the problem, and that is exactly what one gets from Big Tech's significant investment in the U.S. Capitol. They are getting exactly what they paid for I would also say to my Democratic friends that you can't separate Big Tech's control of information and of the news and love it when they agree with you and condemn it when they don't. I don't want to influence the platforms. I want to break them up. I don't want to influence how they use their power. I don't want them to have the power. I don't want them to agree with me. I don't want to influence or shape their views. I want them to stop trying to manipulate the American people. That should be the goal. The goal is not to compromise their power. The goal is not to say: Hey, how about Big Government and Big Tech get together? We have had too much of that already. The goal should be to put a stop to their power and control, because the American people are supposed to be the sovereigns of this democracy, not Big Tech. I say again to my liberal friends and to those on the conservative side of the ledger, as well: If you are not willing to challenge tech's control over news and over information and over communication and over messaging and over journalism, then, I don't think you have yet reckoned with the truly dangerous threat that these companies pose to the functioning of American democracy, and I don't think you have yet reckoned with the threat we are facing to the basic control of ``We the people.'' For my part, I will not stop. I will continue to come to this floor as often as necessary. I will continue to raise my voice and make a nuisance of myself as often and as firmly as necessary until this body acts and until the American people are given back control of their democracy, their information, and their lives. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAWLEY

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 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.

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.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of our Democratic colleagues.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Hinderaker nomination at 11:45 a.m. tomorrow; further, that if cloture is invoked, the Senate vote on confirmation of the Hinderaker nomination at 4 p.m. tomorrow; and that following disposition of the nomination, the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Young nomination. I further ask that if cloture is invoked on the Young nomination, the confirmation vote occur at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader on Thursday, September 24; finally, that the cloture motion on the Samuels nomination be withdrawn and the Senate vote on confirmation of the Samuels nomination following the cloture vote on the Young nomination.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, on rollcall vote 189, I voted nay. It was my intention to vote yea. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Wednesday, September 23; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; finally, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Hinderaker nomination under the previous order.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.