[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.
____________________