[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 55 (Monday, March 27, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S967-S974]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. If there is no further business to come before the 
Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, 
following the remarks of Senators Cassidy, Rubio, Sullivan, and Brown.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                       Nomination of Julie A. Su

  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, last Tuesday, President Biden formally 
nominated Julie Su to be the Secretary of the Department of Labor. Now, 
as ranking member of the committee that oversees her nomination, I felt 
it was important to express some concerns that have only grown since 
her previous nomination.
  Deputy Secretary Su has a troubling record and is currently 
overseeing the Department of Labor's development of anti-worker 
regulations dismantling the gig economy.
  This does not inspire confidence in her current position, let alone 
confidence that she should be promoted. Ms. Su's record now and in her 
previous position as secretary for the California Labor and Workforce 
Development Agency deserves scrutiny. I look forward to a full review 
and hearing process for her nomination.
  In California, Ms. Su was a top architect of AB5, a controversial law 
that removed the flexibility of individuals to work as independent 
contractors.
  Now, independent contractors, you can call them freelancers. They 
make their own hours, and they choose the type of work they wish to do. 
I was recently taking a Lyft. The driver told me he was able to clear 
$500 a day. He has Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash on his phone. He flips 
between the apps, he chooses the job from whichever one is immediately 
available, and through it all, he clears 500 bucks a day. I said, wait 
a second, man, you gotta pay your gas, you gotta pay your insurance; 
are you still--Oh, yeah, I clear 500 a day.
  Now, if he is working five days a week, he is doing $10,000 a month. 
Independent contractors are shielded from forced or coerced 
unionization that could strip that flexibility away. This, of course, 
has made eliminating this classification a top priority for large labor 
unions who benefit from more workers being forced to pay mandatory 
union dues.
  Now, it is important to note, even in California, AB5 is extremely 
unpopular. And 59 percent of California voters supported a measure to 
exempt ride-share drivers from AB5.
  The law is so flawed, the Governor and State legislature have had to 
pass multiple laws to exempt over 100 occupations. The statutory 
exemptions are longer than the text of AB5 itself.
  But Ms. Su has taken her support for this anti-worker, pro-union 
policy to the U.S. Department of Labor. During her tenure as Deputy 
Secretary of Labor, essentially the Agency's chief operating officer, 
the Biden administration pushed to eliminate independent contracting 
via Federal Executive rulemaking.
  Now, there was never any hope of getting AB 5--an AB 5-like law 
through Congress, so they pursued their goals through regulation.
  And, if finalized, the new regulation strips 21 million Americans of 
their ability to classify themselves as independent contractors and 
enjoy the flexibility this provides.
  This regulation would undermine the business model of services like 
Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash that provide valuable services and give 
drivers the ability and freedom to set their own hours and even hop 
between States.
  I got off at the airport in New Orleans, Louis Armstrong 
International Airport, and the guy that picks me up has Maryland 
plates: Oh, yeah, I moved here like six months ago, wanted to come down 
for jazz fest, and so I just notified the different--you know, Uber and 
Lyft, and now I am down here working instead of back where I started.
  We are talking maximum flexibility. By the way, it is not just the 
Uber and Lyft drivers affected; truckers are severely impacted.
  Many truckers are independent owner-operators. They own their own 
trucks. This regulation could devastate the freedom of these truckers. 
It could potentially impact the supply chain in the process, as 
trucking moves more than 72 percent of the goods in the United States 
annually.

  Now, as a conservative from a conservative State--but I think as an 
American from any State--I can say that we don't need the application 
of a law from one of the most liberal States to the entire Nation.
  A law rejected in California is not a policy to be pursued on a 
Federal level. We need to support the right of workers and their 
ability to choose what is best for them, not put them in a straitjacket 
to serve other people's goals.
  I also want to hear Ms. Su's position on DOL's effort to uproot the 
franchise model, which employs over 8 million Americans. Deputy 
Secretary Su has made public comments indicating that she will pursue 
attempts at DOL to forcibly impose a joint employer classification on 
the almost 800,000 franchises operating in our communities,

[[Page S968]]

the same as any other small business. Sadly, franchisors with liability 
for thousands of franchise owners that actually operate the small 
business would be a sure way to destroy the system of franchising, a 
model which has allowed those underrepresented in the business 
community--women, people of color--to have the ability to live the 
American dream, becoming successful small business owners as they help 
create jobs, lifting other workers out of poverty.
  No one is surprised that the joint employer rule is a major priority 
for large labor unions. It is easier for them to pressure one company 
to unionize to increase their union dues than to pressure thousands of 
independent businesses.
  The priority of the Biden administration should not be to do whatever 
makes it easier to forcibly and coercively unionize workers while 
undermining the business models of the establishments they work for. It 
should be to increase individual freedom and opportunity.
  What comes to mind, there is a fellow north of Baton Rouge who moved 
here from West Africa to attend LSU. After he attended LSU, he became a 
citizen, and now he is a franchisor for multiple outlets. And he talks 
about the American dream: coming here from Nigeria as a transfer 
student; getting his citizenship; and now being an owner, involved in 
rotary, running for political office--a better American than most 
Americans. Somehow, this threatens the Department of Labor.
  Now, in addition to our policies, we should ask questions about how 
Ms. Su presided over a mismanaged California unemployment insurance 
program during the pandemic and why California paid $31 billion in 
fraudulent claims when she chose to suspend the eligibility 
determination process.
  Some of these payments went to inmates and known domestic and 
international criminals. To put into context, the Department of Labor's 
requested budget is $15 billion and employs more than 17,000 people. 
This means that Ms. Su lost more than double the annual budget of the 
Agency she will be responsible for managing in Washington, DC. This 
calls into question her qualifications as a manager.
  Unfortunately, there will be many reasons to be concerned about Ms. 
Su's nomination to head the Department of Labor, and I look forward to 
a full hearing process to further discuss.


                             Student Loans

  Mr. President, today we introduced the Congressional Review Act, 
Resolution of Disapproval, to overturn the Biden administration's 
unfair student loan schemes that transfer the burden of $400 billion in 
Federal student loans from those who willingly took on that debt--and 
took on that debt to get a degree that would help them make more 
money--to American taxpayers who, perhaps, never went to college or 
already fulfilled their commitment to pay off their loans, oftentimes 
sacrificing to do so.
  The resolution would also end the pause on student loan payments, 
which, by August, will have cost taxpayers almost $200 billion. 
President Biden has extended this pause six times, for a total of 31 
months, far beyond the original justification of an ongoing pandemic. I 
am joined by 38 of my colleagues in offering this resolution.
  Last August, President Biden announced his plan to cancel up to 
$20,000 in Federal student loans from most borrowers and to extend the 
payment and interest accrual pause in student loans via executive fiat.
  Make no mistake, this reckless student loan scheme does not forgive 
debt. It does not forgive debt at all. It just transfers the burden 
from those who willingly took out these loans for college--and, again, 
in order to make more money when they graduate--to Americans who never 
attended college and who have already paid off their loans.
  And I would ask: Where is the forgiveness for the guy who didn't go 
to college but bought a truck, went to work, and is now working to pay 
off that loan? Is his truck loan going to be forgiven? It will not be.
  And what about the woman who paid off her student loans but is now 
struggling to afford her mortgage? Does she get a refund to help her 
with the mortgage?
  Is the administration providing them relief? And the answer is no. 
Instead, the administration had to not only pay their bills, but the 
bills for those who decided to go to college in order to make more 
money and then have their student loans forgiven. This is irresponsible 
and unfair.
  And, by the way, the plan does nothing to address the problems that 
created the debt in the first place. It doesn't hold colleges or 
universities accountable for rising costs. According to the College 
Board, in the last 30 years, tuition and fees have jumped at private 
nonprofit colleges by 80 percent and at public 4-year institutions by 
124 percent.
  And it doesn't ensure that students are prepared for life after 
college. Indeed, it creates a terrible moral hazard that tells students 
that Federal student loans aren't real commitments and tells colleges 
that no matter how high they raise their prices or what product they 
produce, the Federal Government will cover the tab, courtesy of the 
American taxpayer.
  Our resolution prevents average Americans, the 87 percent of whom 
currently have no student loans, from being stuck with a policy that 
the administration is doing, not to be fair to all but, rather, to 
favor the few.
  Our resolution also protects the rule of law, which President Biden 
must know he is violating.
  During Supreme Court arguments on the legality of the student loan 
forgiveness in February, Justice Roberts clearly indicated that if $400 
billion was to be spent on student loan cancellation, it would and 
should require congressional approval. That has not been given.
  It is a clear example of this administration attempting to subvert 
Congress for what appears to be purely political purposes. It is a 
wildly dangerous precedent if left unchecked.
  For Americans who cannot afford their debt or want a proactive 
approach to paying off their loan commitments, Congress has already 
authorized--again, let me just say this. For someone who can't afford 
their debt or wishes to be proactive to pay off their loan commitments, 
Congress has already authorized 31 different programs to help pay or 
forgive student loans.
  I ask unanimous consent that the list of Federal programs already 
available to Americans who are struggling to repay their loans, work in 
public service, or who are in high-demand fields be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        The Biden Administration's Reckless Student Loan Scheme

       There are already 31 active student loan repayment and 
     forgiveness programs.


        Three Full or Partial Student Loan Forgiveness Programs

     Direct Loan PSLF--
       Government organizations at any level (U.S. federal, state, 
     local, or tribal)--this includes the U.S. military
       Not-for-profit organizations that are tax-exempt under 
     Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code
       Other nonprofit organizations that provide specified types 
     of service (e.g., public health, public safety)
     Stafford Loan Forgiveness for Teachers--
       Teachers who:
       teacher in a school or education service agency serving 
     students from low-income families;
       special education teacher, including teachers of infants, 
     toddlers, children, or youth with disabilities; or
       teacher in the fields of mathematics, science, foreign 
     languages, or bilingual education, or in any other field of 
     expertise determined by a state education agency to have a 
     shortage of qualified teachers in that state.
     Federal Perkins Loan Cancellation--
       Early childhood education provider
       Employee at a child or family services agency
       Faculty member at a tribal college or university
       Firefighter
       Law enforcement officer
       Librarian with master's degree at Title I school
       Military service
       Nurse or medical technician
       Professional provider of early intervention (disability) 
     services
       Public defender
       Speech pathologist with master's degree at Title I school
       Volunteer service (AmeriCorps VISTA or Peace Corps)
       Teacher in a low-income school
       Teachers of math, science, foreign language, bilingual 
     education, or other shortage subject areas

[[Page S969]]

       Special education teachers
     23 active loan repayment programs for:
       12 active repayment programs for federal employees in the 
     following areas:
       Senate employees
       House Employees
       Congressional Budget Office
       Government Employee
       Defense Acquisition Workforce--hard to staff civilian 
     acquisition positions
       Armed Forces: Enlisted members on Active Duty in Military 
     Specialties
       Members of the Selected Reserves
       Health Professionals Officers Serving in the Selected 
     Reserve with Wartime Critical Medical Skill Shortages
       Chaplains Serving in the Selected Reserves
       Education Debt Reduction Program--VA program for hard to 
     staff areas
       National Institutes of Health Intramural--Biomedical or 
     biobehavioral research careers
       National and Community Service grant program--Americorps
     11 Federal Student Loan Repayment Programs for broad 
         employment needs or shortages
       Veterinary Medicine--USDA
       Indian Health Service--
       National Health Service Corps--Health Resources and 
     Services Administration (HRSA)
       National Health Service corps students to service--HRSA
       National health service corps state--HRSA
       Loan repayments for health professional school faculty--
     HRSA
       General, pediatric, and public health dentistry faculty 
     loan repayment--HRSA
       Nursing education LRP--HRSA
       Nurse Faculty--HRSA
       National Institutes of Health Extramural--NIH
       John R. Justice loan repayment for prosecutors and public 
     defenders--DOJ
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, they range from total forgiveness under 
public student loan forgiveness, the PSLF; Stafford loans for teachers; 
and Perkins loans cancellations for law enforcement officers, military, 
early childhood educators, and social workers, to name few.
  There are also repayment programs for high-demand fields, where 
education is specialized and the need is a public good. For example, 
through the Department of Health and Human Services, therapists and 
behavioral health providers who are needed to help our children as we 
face a mental health crisis are eligible for loan forgiveness.
  In addition, there are repayment policies related to the income of an 
individual. There are five different programs to keep payments low 
compared to an individual's income and to cap the total time for 
repayment.
  These are quite different from this mass transfer of debt under this 
reckless student loan scheme, which forgets that these existing 
programs were set up to target limited taxpayer resources to benefit 
those using their degrees to serve and to fill broader public needs or 
who can demonstrate that they, themselves, have a personal, individual 
need.
  By the way, what benefit does the GI bill hold when students can just 
wait to have their student loans forgiven? Why contribute to your 
community by teaching in a public school while getting your Federal 
loans paid off through your service when you can just wait for 
President Biden to forgive your loans? Irresponsible policies like 
President Biden's student loan scheme weaken these incentives and 
discourage Americans from going into public service.
  President Biden and Secretary Cardona, come to the table. There are 
real problems in the student loan system and Federal financing of 
higher education. Let's fix them legally through a lasting, bipartisan 
solution.
  I close by encouraging all my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this Congressional Review Act resolution to prevent this 
unconstitutional student loan forgiveness scheme. It is unfair to the 
hundreds of millions of Americans who will bear the burden of paying 
off hundreds of billions of dollars of someone else's student debt.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                                 TikTok

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, back in 2019, I believe April of 2019, if 
not the first, I must have been one of the first people to call for the 
company TikTok to be banned in the United States. So it has been a 
while now; it is not something I just came up with the other day.
  But I do think that is a pretty extraordinary thing, to ban a 
company, and so before I think we--for someone like me, who has argued 
for a national ban on a company like this, to take away something from 
over 100-and-something million Americans, many of whom I have heard 
from, many of whom I know personally--before we do something like that, 
I think people deserve an explanation as to why is it that we would 
want to do that. I don't think the answer can just be ``Trust us. It is 
bad for America.'' I think they do deserve an answer, and I think they 
do deserve a clear argument as to why it is in our national interest to 
do this and why it is the only option we have.
  First, I think it is important to understand how TikTok works. It is 
an ingenious app--no one argues about it--these short-form videos, and 
it always seems to show you what you want to see. The more you use it, 
the more it shows you the things you want to see.
  How does it do that? Well, it does it two ways. First of all, it 
scoops up an extraordinary amount of data--not just data on what you 
are watching, all kinds of data. CNBC actually talked about it. TikTok, 
you know, collects your content that you viewed, content you created, 
shared. Beyond that, it includes your contact list. It collects your 
name, your age, your user name, your emails, your messages, your 
photos, your videos, and other personal information. In fact, in 2021, 
TikTok changed its privacy policies. It can now even collect biometric 
data, like your faceprint--you know that thing you use when the phone 
unlocks?--and the voiceprint of its users. It is an extraordinary 
amount of data.
  But that is not the only thing it does--because I hear some people 
criticizing us and all they talk about is, well, everybody collects 
data. It is not just the data. What really makes TikTok so effective is 
that it has an algorithm that uses artificial intelligence to combine 
all of this data and your usage, and what that does is it basically--
that algorithm, it knows you better than you know yourself. It knows 
the videos you are going to like before you even know you are going to 
like them, and it is an extraordinary power behind this. It is what 
they call a recommender engine. We are going to call it an algorithm. 
It is a predictor.
  Now, people would say: Well, what is the big deal? All social media 
app companies do that, not just them. I mean, Netflix does it to 
recommend movies you might want to watch, and Spotify does it to 
recommend music. Clearly, Instagram and Facebook and Snap and Twitter--
all of them have an algorithm, and all of them collect data. So what is 
the big deal? What they are doing is no different than anything else.

  Here is the difference. The difference is, of all these companies I 
just mentioned to you, the only one that has a parent company that is a 
Chinese company that owns it is ByteDance. And it is not just that 
there is a Chinese company; they own and they operate the heart and 
soul of TikTok, the recommender engine, the algorithm. That belongs to 
ByteDance. In order for this to work, in order for TikTok to work, 
ByteDance has to have access to the data of Americans. They have to.
  Now, here is where people will say to you: Well, so what if it is a 
Chinese company? It doesn't all have to be American companies.
  Actually, the CEO of TikTok was here last week, and he said: You 
know, ByteDance--I am trying to paraphrase it, but I wrote it--is not 
owned or controlled by the Chinese Government. They are a private 
company that is owned by outside investors that include Americans.
  Well, this is disingenuous. It is not true. And let me tell you why 
it is not true.
  First of all, there is no such thing as a private company in China--
not in the way we think of a private company. Let me explain why.
  In China, No. 1, they have a law called the national intelligence 
law, and the national intelligence law of China requires--doesn't ask 
for; doesn't say: We can go to court and require you to do this. No, 
no. It automatically requires--the national intelligence law of China 
requires every single Chinese company--that includes ByteDance--to do 
whatever the Government of China tells them to do.
  China has another law. It is called the data security law. What that 
law says is that every tech company in China--like ByteDance, a tech 
company in China--they have to hand over to the government whatever 
user information--whatever information they

[[Page S970]]

want. They have to do it by law. That is a big difference between them 
and these other companies.
  So the bottom line is this when it comes to those who argue that it 
is not a company controlled by the Chinese Government--I read the other 
day that China says they are going to block any forced sale of TikTok. 
Well, how could China block the forced sale of TikTok if they don't 
control TikTok? The reason they can block it is because they control--
the government, through these laws--they control the company that 
controls the algorithm that drives TikTok. It is controlled by 
ByteDance. Under Chinese law, if the Government of China tells 
ByteDance, the owner of TikTok, to use the algorithm a certain way, 
they have to do it.
  It doesn't matter who the shareholders--it doesn't matter if 100 
percent of the shareholders of ByteDance are Americans. If they are 
located in China and the Chinese Government tells them: We want you to 
use the algorithm and the data you have access to in a certain way, 
they have no choice but to do it. That is not just true for ByteDance; 
that is true for every company in China.
  So a lot of people say: OK. Well, then, the solution is this: Let's 
just store all the American data here in America. Let's just put it all 
in a server located in the United States, and that will do the trick.
  No, it won't, and here is why. Even if you stored all of the data 
that TikTok has on Americans--over a hundred-something million users--
even if you stored all of it, ByteDance in China still has to be given 
access to that data. You may have it stored in America, but you have to 
give access to ByteDance. Do you know why? Because the algorithm that 
TikTok depends on doesn't work without the data. ByteDance has to have 
access. That is almost like putting your life savings in a safe but 
then giving the thief the combination. Who cares that it is in the 
safe? Who cares where the safe is? If the thief has the combination, 
they can get into the safe.
  So it doesn't matter where you store the data; if ByteDance owns the 
algorithm, they have to have access to the data, and if they have 
access to the data, the Chinese Government has access to the data 
whenever they want.
  The latest iteration is, well, what we should do is we should force 
TikTok to be sold. Sold to whom? TikTok is worthless--worthless--
without the algorithm. So even if TikTok, as we know the company, is 
bought by Americans, they still need the algorithm that ByteDance owns, 
and you can't buy the algorithm from ByteDance even if they wanted to 
sell it to you. Do you know why? Do you know why ByteDance can never 
sell you the algorithm, the recommender engine that powers TikTok? 
Because the Chinese Government in 2020 imposed a law that prohibits it. 
The Chinese Government specifically imposed a law in 2020 that says you 
cannot transfer the algorithm outside of China. So selling it is not 
going to make a difference because no matter who buys it, TikTok is 
worthless. It won't work without the algorithm. The algorithm belongs 
to ByteDance, ByteDance is in China, and they have to do whatever the 
Chinese Government tells them to do.

  This is where people have said to me: Well, who cares? Who cares if 
the Chinese Government controls the algorithm and has access to the 
data?
  They want me to explain how an app that features funny videos and the 
latest dance fad--how that is possibly a national security threat. So 
let me walk you through a very realistic hypothetical.
  Let's suppose for a moment that China decides they are going to 
invade Taiwan in 2027 or 2028, and the key to a successful invasion or 
taking of Taiwan is to prevent the United States of America from 
getting involved, and the key to keeping the United States from getting 
involved is to convince the American people that we shouldn't get 
involved because they know we are a democracy. They know that public 
opinion matters in America.
  Knowing all this, the Chinese Government goes to ByteDance, who, by 
law, has to do whatever they are told, and the Chinese Government says 
to ByteDance: We want you to align your algorithm to shape American 
public opinion on Taiwan.
  They won't do this overnight; they will spend a couple years laying 
this out.
  We want you to align your algorithm to make sure that people in 
America are seeing messages that convince them that America should not 
get involved, and not only that, we want you to use the data to target 
specific American audiences with specific messages.
  For example, some Americans might see a bunch of videos that allege 
to show people in Taiwan--probably fake but nonetheless people in 
Taiwan supporting a Chinese takeover. Maybe family members--remember, 
they have all this data on us. Family members of military members would 
see videos about how thousands of Americans will die if the United 
States gets involved. Others might see videos of Americans--or who they 
think are Americans--arguing: Why do we care about Taiwan? We should be 
focused on our problems here at home.
  When we notice that they are doing something about it--that is what 
people will say: Well, when that happens, then you deal with it.
  Well, once you notice that they are actually doing it and we try to 
do something about it, do you know what comes next? Here is what comes 
next--what is already happening now. You are going to have a bunch of 
small businesses in America that depend on marketing on TikTok. And let 
me tell you something. I don't diminish that. It is true. I know people 
who have built up their businesses, and they use TikTok for marketing, 
and it works. It is better than the other apps for that.
  But just imagine when we go to them and say: Guys, we have to shut 
TikTok down now because now it is real. Now they are using it against 
us.
  Those people are going to come up and say: You are going to destroy 
my business.
  In fact, China will probably threaten those people. China will 
probably make it very clear: The U.S. gets involved, we are going to 
knock all the Americans off of TikTok. Down goes your business.
  Those people will suddenly be asking their elected official here not 
to get involved in Taiwan. Do you know where we find ourselves then? 
Paralyzed. A country that is paralyzed, that cannot act in its own 
national security interests because we have allowed an adversary to 
basically use an app that they control and the data that they control 
to shape public opinion in America over an extended period of time, and 
we can't do anything about it.
  Now, here is where some people will say: Well, that is a violation of 
the First Amendment--free country.
  I agree. You have a right to speak. I don't agree that it is a 
violation of the First Amendment; I agree that you have a right to 
speak and say anything you want in America.
  This is not about the content of the video. What this is about is the 
existence of a company that is related to an important government 
interest.
  What is that government interest? It is not just a substantial 
government interest; it is the most important government interest that 
we have--the national security of our country. And preventing our 
country from being paralyzed from acting in its national security 
interest is the most compelling and important government interest one 
can imagine.
  Now, people say: Well, this is all hypothetical. There is no evidence 
the Chinese Government is doing any of this.
  Well, let me first start by saying that every threat to our national 
security begins as theoretical before it becomes reality.
  For example, China is building hypersonic missiles designed to sink 
our ships. They are not firing them at our ships today. They are not 
sinking our ships. They are not even threatening to sink our ships 
openly. Yet, somehow, everybody around here agrees that we have got to 
do something about the hypersonics.
  But they are not doing it now. It is theoretical, right?
  Russia has never launched nuclear missiles against the United States, 
but we spend a lot of money every year on NORAD, on monitoring our 
skies, on making sure that we aren't being attacked. It is a 
theoretical threat, but one we have taken seriously for 70 years.
  Second, what is so theoretical about using propaganda during a time 
of war?

[[Page S971]]

There is nothing theoretical about propaganda during war and conflict. 
In fact, propaganda has been a weapon that has been used in virtually 
every conflict for centuries to demoralize and to divide your 
adversary.
  Third, this is not just theoretical. We have actually seen TikTok be 
used to drive messages and to undermine opponents. It was used to 
spread pro-Russian messages during the invasion of Ukraine. It has been 
used to suppress videos talking about Tiananmen Square and the genocide 
of Uighur Muslims in China. It is already being used to censor all 
kinds of--in fact, it was used. It was used to control content and 
limit content about our elections in this country in 2022.
  It goes more. I can go further than that. ByteDance has already been 
used. ByteDance China has already been used to collect data on specific 
reporters whose stories ByteDance didn't like. So they used it to track 
the locations of these reporters.
  Where are they? Who are they talking to? In fact, here in America--
here in America--TikTok was caught spying on American journalists who 
were writing stories that TikTok didn't like, and TikTok denied it: It 
is not true; it is a lie.
  And then they had to admit it. So now, it is: Oh, we fired the people 
who did this.
  And now they are under Justice Department investigation.
  But here is the point I would say about this whole theoretical thing. 
If God forbid--and I say ``God forbid,'' I really do, because no one 
wishes for armed conflict with anyone. There is nothing good about war. 
If, God forbid, we are ever in a war with China, China will use cyber 
attacks to try to take down our electric grid. China will use space 
weapons to try to destroy the satellites we have in space. China will 
use these missiles to sink our ships and kill Americans.
  China will do all these things, but somehow we think they are 
incapable of using a social media app with 150 to 200 million users. 
They would never use that against us. They will sink our ships, shoot 
down our satellites, shut down our grid, but they would never use an 
app that they control. Come on. Of course, they would.
  Look, there is a lot more to say on this topic, and this is one we 
should debate and talk about. This is a big deal. Don't take this 
lightly.
  But I will say this. You know, since 1991, America has been the sole 
superpower in the world. I would venture to guess that almost everyone 
who serves here did not serve in government at a time when America had 
a near-peer adversary, for the most part. So I think we, generally, as 
a nation--certainly, the government--have forgotten what it is like to 
live in a world in which there is another country and another 
government that has almost as much power as we do. But, after 30 years, 
that is where we are. That is where we stand right now. Whether we like 
it or not, we are in a near-peer competition and, in many ways, a 
conflict with China for global influence, for the direction of the 
world, with two very different views of the planet--with the Government 
of China, by the way, because I always hear people talk about this: We 
have no problem. The Chinese people are the No. 1 victims of the 
Chinese Communist Party on the planet. The No. 1 victims of the Chinese 
Communist Party are the Chinese people.
  But their government--it is very simple, guys. They want to be the 
world's most powerful country, and they want to do it at our expense. 
And the consequences of that is that the world's most powerful country 
will be a nation that puts Uighur Muslims in death camps; that is 
trying to destroy Tibetan culture; that had no problem massacring their 
own people in Tiananmen Square; that as we speak, right now, are arming 
the Russians to commit these atrocities in Ukraine; that don't believe 
any of the things we are debating about free speech and the like.
  We are in a competition, and we are in a conflict--hopefully, never 
an armed one, but, nonetheless, a conflict. And we have, operating in 
our country, an app--the fastest growing app--a social media app that 
has the most detailed personal data on over 100 million American users 
and growing, and they are turning over the power for, one day, for them 
to use it to divide us, to paralyze us, to confuse us, to turn us 
against each other.
  Think of the damage that Russia did by putting bots, fake accounts, 
on Twitter and buying ads on Facebook. Can you imagine if Russia 
actually owned Facebook or Twitter--not put ads, not put bots, but 
actually controlled those companies--the damage they would have done to 
this country?
  Now, imagine that with a country with an economy 50 times the size 
and with 100 times more capabilities, because that is what we are 
facing here.
  It is not a game, and we should take it seriously. If there is a way 
to deal with this that doesn't involve a ban or something drastic, I 
have always been open to that. But it doesn't exist because of the way 
this company is structured. And we had better take it seriously or one 
day, 20, 30 years from now, people will look back and say: You guys 
should have taken it seriously--and we failed to do so, and we paid the 
price for it.
  We should act on it as soon as possible. We should ban TikTok because 
it is bad for America. It harms our country, and it is a danger to our 
future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Smith). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I thank Senator Rubio for his comments.
  Whenever I hear my colleagues rail against China--and I agree with 
that 95 percent of the time. Whenever I hear them say things like that 
they want to be the world's most powerful country, the most powerful 
government, I agree with that.
  But, as Senator Rubio said--this isn't a debate between him and me. I 
just want to make a couple of comments. I want to talk about worker 
safety, in a moment, which I know the Presiding Officer cares so much 
about.
  I go back half a generation. Senator Rubio wasn't here then, but many 
of his ideological soulmates were here then. This Congress couldn't 
stop itself, from Presidents Clinton and Bush 1 and Obama and Bush 2 
and Trump--couldn't help themselves--from giving all kinds of breaks to 
American corporations and incentives to American corporations to go to 
China, to move to China.
  So they shut down production in Duluth, MN. They shut down production 
in Mansfield, OH, my hometown, and Toledo and Youngstown.
  As corporations were lobbying Congress, I worked and I teamed up with 
Lindsey Graham, a Republican, against that. We were unsuccessful, as 
corporations lobbied Congress to give China something called permanent 
normal trade relations.
  So they shut down production in Ohio. They moved that production to 
China. And what happened? They taught China a whole lot about 
manufacturing, and they created a whole lot of wealth in China.
  Now we are surprised about TikTok. We are surprised that the Chinese 
military is as powerful as it is. I just think it is important that we 
remember, when we listen to corporate interests in this body who lobby 
here to weaken, to push jobs overseas, that these are the kinds of 
things that happen. And I hope we learn from that, and I hope we take a 
lesson and apply it to TikTok into the future.
  So, Senator Rubio, thank you for raising the issue.


                             Worker Safety

  Madam President, I want to talk about worker safety for a moment. On 
Friday, seven American workers went to work in West Reading, PA, at the 
RM Chocolate Factory to provide for their families.
  I spoke to Senator Casey about this, who is the senior Senator from 
Pennsylvania and who is one of the leaders in fighting for worker 
safety in this body. I spoke with him about it a few minutes ago.
  Those seven workers never came home after an explosion leveled the 
plant. Our thoughts are with the families who lost sons and daughters, 
workers who were paid decent wages, not exorbitant wages--decent 
wages--and never returned home to their families.
  We will learn more about what went wrong. I know Pennsylvania workers 
will always have an ally with Senators Casey and Fetterman on this 
issue and so much more.
  This struck me in a more emphatic way because I believe it was 1 day 
before the 112th anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire. 
That

[[Page S972]]

tragedy woke up the Nation to the dangers that workers face in their 
jobs--dozens of workers, because the management had locked the factory 
doors because they were afraid that some of these low-paid, mostly 
women, some of them very young, workers might steal a blouse or two. 
They locked the factory doors. So when this fire broke out in a very 
flammable environment, workers jumped out the windows to their deaths--
dozens and dozens of workers.
  That made a huge difference in Congress finally dealing with worker 
safety.
  In fact, a woman who was nearby, heard the sirens, and came to the 
scene was named Frances Perkins. She became the first female Secretary 
of Labor, under President Roosevelt. She stayed with him his entire 12-
plus years in office and played a big role, with Senator Wagner, in 
writing the most pro-worker legislation in this Nation's history, 
especially on worker safety.
  Now, Madam President, I wear this pin on my lapel. I have worn it 
since it was given to me 25 years ago, at a workers' Memorial Day 
rally, by the steelworkers. It is a picture of a canary in a bird cage.
  The mine workers, 120 years ago, used to take a canary down in the 
mine. If the canary died from toxic gas or lack of oxygen, the mine 
worker got out of the mine. He had no union, in those days, strong 
enough to protect him. He had no government, in those days, that cared 
enough to protect him.
  We changed that because of worker safety laws. We changed that 
because of unions. This tragedy in West Reading, PA, reminds us that 
our work to protect workers and make workplaces safer never ends.
  I think about those steelworkers who lost their lives near Toledo in 
an explosion in a refinery in Oregon, OH, last year. Max Morrissey and 
Ben Morrissey were brothers who died in that accident.
  I think about the Norfolk Southern worker who worked for Norfolk 
Southern, and, because of its culture of laying off workers and 
compromising safety and paying big compensation bonuses to executives, 
the worker at Norfolk Southern lost his life earlier this month.
  No worker should have to worry about returning--kissing her husband 
goodbye, kissing his wife goodbye, kissing his or her children goodbye, 
they should not have to worry about returning home. That is why we 
should stand up to corporate lobbies that always want to cut costs--
worker safety be damned.
  We know what happened. We saw in East Palestine what happened because 
the railroad laid off a third of its workers and then they compromised 
on safety. We saw what happened in Silicon Valley Bank when they didn't 
pay attention to consumers and regulators and the public interest.
  And, again, workers always pay the price. We know what will happen. 
Every time there is an industrial accident, people are upset; they 
worry about it.
  But the companies continue to lobby regulators for weaker laws. We 
see it here with corporate lobbyists. We see it in the regulatory 
Agencies, when they always want to weaken consumer laws, they always 
want to weaken environmental laws, they always want to weaken worker 
safety laws, and communities always pay, and workers always pay.
  That is why a union card is so powerful. It means higher wages, 
better benefits, and a safer workplace. If you love this country, you 
fight for the people who make it work, whether they punch a clock or 
swipe a badge or whether they work for tips or whether they work on 
salary. You fight to keep people safe on the job. That is our job here, 
to make sure we do that better than we have in the past.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                                 S. 316

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, we are debating, last week and this 
week, the authorization for the use of military force authority that 
was granted in 2002, which is a really important debate that we are 
seeing right here on the Senate floor.
  By the way, it is a good-faith argument. There are Members on both 
sides of the aisle making different arguments.
  There is not a topic, in my view, more important than the issues at 
stake here--how to use military force; when to use military force; is 
it authorized by the President to use military force?--because, as to 
the issue of the U.S. Government sending young men and women into 
harm's way to defend our country's interests, there is nothing more 
important, in my view--nothing more important.
  I appreciate the time and the debate here on the floor. It is also 
important because it wraps into--when you talk about young men and 
women going into harm's way overseas, one of the biggest harms to 
American service men and women over the past 20 years has actually been 
from Shia militia groups supported by Iranian terrorist organizations. 
Now, it doesn't always seem to make sense in that Americans who were 
killed in Iraq and wounded in Iraq were often--and I will give some of 
the numbers here--killed and wounded because those who did the killing 
and wounding were supplied by Iranian terrorist groups. In particular, 
the Quds Force, which was led by Qasem Soleimani, during the course of 
the Iraq war, killed over 600 American servicemembers and wounded over 
2,000 with very sophisticated IEDs that were supplied by the Iranians 
to their proxies in Iraq.
  So what does any of this have to do with the 2002 AUMF for Iraq that 
we were debating last week and will debate this week? Well, the answer 
is everything, everything.
  We eventually figured out--we, the United States--that these very 
sophisticated IEDs, which are called explosively formed projectiles or 
penetrators, EFPs, were actually, as I mentioned, caused by the 
Iranians. It took some time to figure this out because, like so many 
things, the Iranian terrorists in Tehran and the ayatollahs lie--they 
lie--and they denied it. ``Oh, we didn't have anything to do with 
that.'' Well, they actually had everything to do with that. Again, the 
best and brightest in America, in my view, for many years, during the 
Iraq war, were being killed by Iranian terrorists and being led by 
Qasem Soleimani, who was the head of the Quds Force, that was doing 
this.
  During that time of 2005 to the middle of 2006, I was serving as a 
Marine Corps staff officer to the commanding general to the U.S. 
Central Command, General Abizaid. I was deployed to many parts of the 
CENTCOM AOR with the CENTCOM Commander. Probably the biggest concern, 
no doubt, was of these incredibly effective, brutally efficient EFPs 
that were killing and wounding so many of our best and brightest. To 
this day, it is just remarkable to me that so few people even know 
about this or talk about it--the killing and maiming of thousands of 
American troops by the Iranians and the Quds Force, led by General 
Soleimani.
  Again, what does this have to do with the 2002 AUMF? Everything.
  What happened during that time?
  Well, when we figured out it was the Iranians doing this, we--we, 
again, the national leadership--never really retaliated against Iran at 
all. Imagine that. We knew that they were killing and wounding 
thousands of our best and brightest, and the United States did not do 
anything to establish deterrence. As a matter of fact, during that 
time, we lost deterrence, and it became clear that Iran, with good 
reason, started to think: Hey, we can kill American servicemembers with 
impunity. There is no price.
  So they did.
  When you lose deterrence with a terrorist regime that likes to kill 
Americans and has a history of killing Americans, it is not a good 
thing, especially for the young men and women who are serving our 
country in dangerous places.
  I remember, early on in my Senate tenure here, in a briefing we had 
in the SCIF, I asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs: Do you think we 
have lost deterrence? There have been 600 Americans killed and over 
2,000 wounded. Do you think the Iranians believe they can kill as many 
American servicemembers as they can--again, America's best and 
brightest--and not pay a price?
  The Chairman said: Yes. The Chairman said: Yes.
  I remember that very distinctly.

[[Page S973]]

  So the whole point is, How do you reestablish deterrence? Because, if 
you reestablish deterrence, you are going to save lives, and you are 
going to protect your servicemembers.
  Again, there is nothing more important that we do as a country than 
making sure the men and women who go defend our country--who defend us, 
who defend our interests--are protected, are lethal, are the best 
trained. But it is difficult because, when you lose deterrence, it is 
hard to get it back. Well, we did get it back, and I certainly applaud 
President Trump and the Trump administration.
  When Qasem Soleimani was back in Iraq, scoping American forces to 
kill--by the way, a lot of them during that time were from Alaska--in 
early January 2020, the Trump administration said: The joke is over. 
This guy with the blood on his hands of thousands of our best and 
brightest--he is not doing it again.
  And he was killed during a daring strike on January 3, 2020. He was 
looking to kill more American troops in Iraq, and he got killed. I 
think it was justified and an important signal to send to everybody 
around the world that you can't go around killing American troops and 
not expect to have retaliation against you or your country. That should 
be basic. That should be basic. Every U.S. Senator here, today, should 
agree with that 110 percent.
  The Trump administration said: We are not going to allow this 
anymore, and the guy who is responsible for killing so many Americans 
and wounding so many Americans--he is going to pay.
  And he did, with his life.
  The legal authorization for that very justified killing was the 2002 
AUMF that we are debating right now. OK. That was only 3 years ago that 
that happened. So it is very relevant to the issue of deterrence and 
very relevant to the issue of Iran.
  For some of my colleagues to say: Well, it is old. It has nothing to 
do with anything that is happening right now, they couldn't be more 
inaccurate. This matters, and it matters today. For those who say it 
doesn't, they don't know this history or they don't want to know this 
history or they haven't been watching the news for the last 96 hours.
  Some of us are concerned about the very debate we are having here, 
which is to say: Let's remove the authorization that we used to kill 
Soleimani. Let's get rid of it. Hmm, what kind of signal does that 
send? Could this signal maybe we are not worried about deterring Iran 
anymore? Could this signal that removing this authorization, this 2002 
authorization that, again, was used to regain deterrence with Iran--if 
we got rid of it, would this embolden Iran?
  Well, as I mentioned, in the last 96 hours, we have had Iranian 
proxies unleashing deadly attacks on American servicemembers and 
American contractors. That is happening right now. Is it a coincidence? 
I don't know. One American is dead, and five have been wounded with 
these brazen attacks. Some of us thought this actually might happen. It 
is happening. It is happening.
  Unfortunately, there was a little bit of something going on last week 
that we are going to get to the bottom of. Trust me. On the Armed 
Services Committee, we are going to get to the bottom of it because, 
last Thursday, when we were debating the AUMF, these vicious attacks 
started at 6:30 a.m., DC time. It was on the day we were debating the 
AUMF--all day Thursday. We didn't hear about it until the close of 
business Thursday. Was somebody hiding that information from us? It was 
pretty relevant information. We are going to find out about that.
  I am going to be offering an amendment to the AUMF tomorrow, and I 
believe every U.S. Senator should vote for it. Here is why: I believe 
that the 2002 AUMF clearly helped with deterrence. It was the 
authority, in addition to article II, to take out one of the biggest 
terrorists, heck, in the 21st century. That is for sure. He killed more 
Americans than any other terrorist. That is for sure.
  So the question is, Will removing this AUMF lessen American 
deterrence against Iran's malign activities?
  That is what my amendment asks the Director of National Intelligence 
to do--to look at that question and certify the answer. If the answer 
is no, then this new AUMF or the removal of this AUMF can go forward.
  Again, it is a really simple question: Ask the DNI, for the next 30 
days, to look at this question: Will removing the 2002 AUMF lessen 
American deterrence against Iran's malign activities?
  Why wouldn't every U.S. Senator want to go: ``That is a really good 
question. Heck, we are seeing it in the Middle East right now--in 
Syria. Maybe this is going to embolden Iran. Heck, maybe we shouldn't 
do it. Maybe, by doing this, we are going to put American 
servicemembers' lives at risk. Hmm. Maybe we shouldn't do it. Let's ask 
the DNI''?
  That is it. Why wouldn't you want that?
  I was just talking to a couple of the proponents of this AUMF debate. 
Again, I have a lot of respect for them, but I asked them: Why wouldn't 
you want this? Wouldn't you want to know? Just wait 30 more days. I 
know you have been trying to get this removed for years. Wait 30 days. 
Send it to the President's own Director of National Intelligence and 
ask her: Review the intelligence. Review what you are hearing with the 
chatter among the Iranian proxies who are trying to kill Americans and 
who have killed Americans. Is any of this related to the removal of the 
AUMF? Then give us an answer in 30 days, and if the answer is no, this 
can move forward. If it is yes and this will hurt our deterrence 
against Iran, then we shouldn't be doing this.
  That is all my amendment is asking. It simply says: As for the 
authorization for use of military force--the AUMF--of 2002, if it is 
voted on to be repealed, which it looks like it will be, it will go 
into effect after the Director of National Intelligence certifies in an 
intelligence assessment to Congress that the repeal will not degrade 
the effectiveness of U.S.-led deterrence against Iranian 
aggression. Who could be against that? We should have 100 U.S. Senators 
wanting to know the answer to that question, especially given what just 
happened over the last 96 hours, because maybe this debate is 
emboldening the Iranian proxies and terrorists. Maybe it is not. So 
let's get the answer.

  My amendment would also make sure that it is 100 percent clear that 
if the 2002 AUMF is repealed, the United States can fully retaliate 
against the Iranians or any Iranian threat if they are threatening our 
country or our people.
  I know that most of my colleagues here agree with that. We negotiated 
that language with some of my Democratic friends and Republican 
friends. So it is just that and this issue of asking the DNI to certify 
that what we are doing on the Senate floor right now is not going to 
undermine our deterrence against Iran and, oh, by the way, put more 
American lives at risk.
  It is simple. I would be shocked if any Senator voted against wanting 
to know the answer to that basic question.
  I am asking my colleagues to just think hard. Don't you want more 
information? Can't you wait 30 more days to get President Biden's DNI 
to certify that what we are doing right here in the Senate is not going 
to undermine deterrence and put more American lives at risk? I hope 
that all of my colleagues would agree with that and vote on my 
amendment.
  Finally, I will just say, the deterrence that we regained with the 
justified killing of Soleimani has clearly been slipping away, 
particularly once the Biden administration came into office, and it is 
a concern.
  I was on a recent bipartisan codel to the Middle East, and the No. 1 
issue we were hearing about in every single stop by every single leader 
was the malign activities of Iran. You name the country we were in--and 
we were in a lot of them, all the Abraham Accords countries in Israel--
Iran was the No. 1 topic and how aggressive they are getting.
  The lifting of the terrorist designation for the Iranian-backed 
Houthis almost in the first month of this administration, February 
2021, was a sign of weakening deterrence against Iran.
  The administration's inability to stand firmly with the United Arab 
Emirates, one of our strongest allies in the Middle East, when it was 
attacked by Houthi missiles and drones--of course, with the Iranians' 
help--was something else that lessened our deterrence.

[[Page S974]]

  Just last week, when the CENTCOM Commander testified, he said there 
had been 78 similar attacks on American forces since 2021. We are 
losing deterrence. That is during the Biden administration's 2 years. 
They have been attacking the hell out of our troops. What are we doing? 
What are we doing?
  The mullahs in Tehran, like all tyrants, are emboldened by 
accommodation. So I am asking my Senate colleagues to take the very 
prudent, logical, and responsible step to ask the DNI if what we are 
getting ready to do here on the Senate floor, which is to remove the 
2002 AUMF, will that undermine our deterrence against Iran? Let's wait 
30 days and get the answer.
  Don't put your head in the sand, my colleagues. Stand up. See what 
the answer is from the DNI so we can move forward in a way that makes 
sense for our national security, deterrence of the world's largest 
state sponsor of terrorism, and, most importantly, the ability to 
protect and defend our servicemembers serving overseas in places like 
Syria that are very dangerous.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________