[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 6 (Monday, January 13, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S85-S87]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             LAKEN RILEY ACT--Motion To Proceed--Continued

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic whip.


                            Laken Riley Act

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, later today, the Senate will vote on the 
motion to proceed to legislation known as the Laken Riley Act.
  The loss of a child is something no parent should have to endure. My 
thoughts and prayers are with the family of Laken Riley--by any 
measure, an outstanding young woman. We should do everything possible 
to make sure this type of tragedy never occurs again.
  But I do have concerns about some of the language in this 
legislation.
  Let me give you an example. This bill would mandate immigration 
detention for an undocumented immigrant if they are arrested for 
shoplifting--even if they are never charged or convicted for that 
offense.
  Most people, having paid a little attention to law enforcement 
review, television, movies, know the process. You steal a candy bar, a 
hand on the shoulder, clerk says: Wait a minute. What are you doing 
here? Next thing you know a policeman is called in; he arrests you for 
shoplifting. They then take you in and charge you with that crime. You 
make a plea, guilty or not guilty. Ultimately, it is resolved by a 
trial of some nature. That is the ordinary process.
  The question is whether someone should be deported the very first 
time that the hand reaches your shoulder with candy bar in hand but no 
charge of any crime. That is what this bill does. That is going a 
little bit too far as far as I am personally concerned.
  This bill would mandate immigrant detention if they are arrested for 
shoplifting, not convicted, even if they are never charged or 
convicted.
  Current law requires mandatory detention of individuals with serious 
criminal convictions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better 
known as ICE. This has been on the books for a long time. It is the 
right thing to do. I don't want dangerous people coming into this 
country, and I don't want anyone dangerous and undocumented to stay in 
this country, period.
  Existing law gives ICE discretion to detain undocumented immigrants 
on a case-by-case basis. ICE assesses each case individually so the 
Agency's limited resources are used effectively to protect national 
security and public safety.
  This bill, as currently written, would eliminate ICE's discretion to 
prioritize

[[Page S86]]

detention and deportation of dangerous individuals. Instead, it 
requires--requires--ICE to treat a child arrested for shoplifting candy 
the same as an adult convicted of child abuse. Why?
  In practice, this would overwhelm ICE detention facilities and make 
America less safe. Let me tell you some of the numbers of this what 
appears to be simple bill. ICE told my office that this legislation 
would require them to detain more than 65,000 immigrants, but Congress 
has only provided ICE with funding to detain 42,000, and the Agency is 
already holding nearly that many.
  So if this legislation becomes law, ICE would be forced to release 
tens of thousands of other immigrants who were detained under ICE's 
current policies, which prioritize those who pose a threat to public 
safety.
  This bill would also grant State attorneys general the standing to 
sue if the State disagrees with many unrelated decisions made by 
Federal immigration authorities.
  It would require Federal courts to prioritize these cases to the 
greatest extent possible. This would rob Federal judges of the ability 
to control their courtrooms and grind their dockets to a halt.
  These standing provisions would also undermine the supremacy of the 
Federal Government over immigration and border security, which is 
established by our Constitution.
  They could also dramatically reduce legal immigration to our country. 
Because of the way it is drafted, the Department of State, under any 
administration, could be blocked from issuing any visas to nationals 
from a certain country, like India or China.
  Perhaps some of my colleagues think they are pretty good policy 
goals, but they have nothing to do with the tragic murder of this young 
woman.
  If we are going to consider this bill, we must have a chance to offer 
amendments to fix a few of these problems and assure the bill would 
accomplish its goal.


                     Nomination of Pamela Jo Bondi

  Mr. President, this week the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a 
confirmation hearing for Pam Bondi--President-elect Trump's choice for 
Attorney General. I appreciated meeting with Ms. Bondi last week to 
discuss issues of great importance to the American people. She is 
impressive. She is clearly a professional, a trusted attorney, and has 
an amazing background. I appreciated meeting with her.
  The significance of the Attorney General cannot be overstated. The 
Department of Justice is responsible for safeguarding civil rights and 
liberties, promoting public safety, and ensuring economic opportunity 
and fairness. An independent Attorney General is essential. The Justice 
Department leader must be loyal to the Constitution above all else--
including the President.
  But during his first term, then-President Trump used the Department 
of Justice as his personal attorneys. He tried to thwart the Mueller 
investigation, protect political allies, and even overturn the result 
of the 2020 Presidential election.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Trump has pledged that during his second term he 
will weaponize the Justice Department to seek revenge on his political 
enemies. The President-elect has made it clear that he values one thing 
above all else in an Attorney General: loyalty. I have no reason to 
believe President-elect Trump has changed his litmus test for Attorney 
General or his views on how the Justice Department should operate.
  In fact, I fear that he found someone who can pass his loyalty test. 
We will see at the hearing.
  The obvious concern with Ms. Bondi is whether she will follow the 
bipartisan tradition of the post-Watergate era and oversee an 
independent Department of Justice that upholds the rule of law.
  Ms. Bondi is one of four personal lawyers to President-elect Trump 
whom he has already selected for Department of Justice positions. She 
was a leader in an effort to overturn the 2020 election; she has echoed 
the President's calls for prosecuting his political opponents; and she 
has a troubling history of unflinching loyalty to the President-elect.
  In addition, she has a record of hostility to fundamental civil 
rights, including reproductive rights, voting rights, and LGBTQ rights.
  Every President has the right to nominate individuals to serve in key 
Cabinet positions. However, the Senate has the constitutional duty to 
provide advice and consent on these nominations. This week's hearing 
will provide an opportunity to learn more about her, her nomination, 
and her vision.
  The American people deserve an Attorney General who will protect 
their fundamental rights, demonstrate independence and integrity, and 
remain faithful to the Constitution, the country, and the rule of law.
  I yield the floor.
  (Mr. BUDD assumed the Chair.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). The Senator from Massachusetts.


                               TikTok Ban

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise today to address the profound 
economic, social, and political importance of TikTok's creators and the 
serious consequences of a nationwide TikTok ban.
  When the Senate passed legislation last year authorizing a ban on 
TikTok, it was bundled with essential foreign aid measures. Critically, 
the Senate never held a direct vote on the TikTok ban itself. This 
rushed process left many of my colleagues with the impression that 
ByteDance, TikTok's parent company, would divest from the platform, 
rendering the ban unnecessary, as its proponents had suggested.
  Back in April, I took to this Chamber floor to warn that such an 
approach was ill-considered. Today, with TikTok on the brink of being 
banned in the United States, my concerns have become a reality because 
what we are learning is that the TikTok law is indeed a TikTok ban.
  As the January 19 deadline approaches, TikTok creators and users 
across the Nation are understandably alarmed. They are uncertain about 
the future of the platform, their accounts, and the vibrant online 
communities they have cultivated.
  Supporters of the law have often dismissed TikTok as trivial, 
characterizing it as a platform dominated by juvenile dance videos and 
seemingly inconsequential content. They were wrong then, and they are 
wrong now. TikTok, like all social media platforms, has flaws, but 
TikTok is also critical for millions of creators to earn a living, for 
young people to express themselves, and for Americans of all ages to 
foster community, share a laugh, and learn something new. Yes, 
sometimes these laughs come from the shared experience of attempting to 
learn and recreate a funny dance video, but just as often, TikTok 
provides a space for meaningful political conversations on everything 
from gun violence to climate change.
  Most recently, TikTok users have been sharing harrowing videos of the 
devastating wildfires that have destroyed thousands of homes in 
California. These personal videos have provided a firsthand account of 
the tragedy, creating a virtual gathering space for shared stories, 
mutual support, and urgent calls for assistance to this climate change-
created catastrophe.
  Over the past 24 hours, I have received millions of views on my 
TikTok videos advocating for an end to the ban. One of these videos has 
over 20,000 comments and counting. That is tens of thousands of users 
reaching out to make their voices heard. I have been tagged in hundreds 
of stories over the past 24 hours as TikTok users have posted short 
videos explaining why TikTok is important for their lives.
  Meredith Lynch, a writer and comedian from my home State of 
Massachusetts, currently residing in Los Angeles, said:

       Here in Los Angeles I know I personally--and I know so many 
     other people have been relying on this app during the fires. 
     It is a way in which we are spreading [information that the] 
     community [needs], it is a way in which we are spreading 
     resources.

  Rae, a user who has recently been diagnosed with thyroid cancer, 
explained:

       Because of TikTok I was able to come on here and share my 
     story . . . I was able to participate in the creator rewards 
     program. That money is going to help me pay for my cancer 
     surgery.

  Mary, a disability rights advocate and low-income, single mother 
living in Rhode Island, shared that she plays ukulele on TikTok for 
tips, which pays for her groceries. She explained:

       While the district failed me, I found a community on 
     TikTok.


[[Page S87]]


  This is just a small sample of the thousands of stories that TikTok 
users are posting about the app's importance in their lives.
  If my colleagues remain unmoved by these personal accounts, they 
should consider the political implications of the TikTok ban. The 170 
million Americans that use TikTok each month will be furious when their 
favorite platform goes dark. That is 170 million Americans--170 million 
reasons to think very carefully about their position on the TikTok ban.
  Make no mistake, these communities cannot be replicated on another 
app. Creators and small businesses cannot rebuild their audiences 
overnight. Many have stated that thanks to TikTok's unique culture, it 
is impossible to develop a similar following on another platform. Users 
cannot transfer their followers and communities to a new platform.
  A ban would dismantle a one-of-a-kind informational and cultural 
ecosystem, silencing millions in the process.
  The stakes are very high over the next week, and that is why I will 
soon introduce the Extend the TikTok Deadline Act to extend the 
deadline by which ByteDance must sell TikTok or face a ban, and it 
should be extended by an additional 270 days.
  Now that my colleagues understand that the TikTok ban is real, we 
need time to have a deeper conversation about how to address the 
national security risk caused by ByteDance's ownership of TikTok. We 
need time to understand the ban's implication on TikTok's creators and 
users. We need time to consider alternative ideas.
  This legislation does not repeal the original legislation; it merely 
allows for more time.
  Let me be clear. TikTok has its problems. Like every social media 
platform, TikTok poses a serious risk to the privacy and mental health 
of our young people in our country. In fact, TikTok paid a fine for 
violating my law, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, just a 
few years ago. I am proud of my law, and I am proud that the Federal 
Trade Commission took action under my law. But they have also done the 
same kind of action against American companies and fined them for doing 
the very same thing to children in our country online. So it is not 
just a TikTok issue; it is American companies that actually set the 
example for how young people in our country get abused.
  Last year, I sent a letter to the Department of Justice urging it to 
quickly review the allegations that TikTok had violated COPPA yet 
again. I will continue to hold TikTok accountable for such behavior, 
but I will hold every American company, from Instagram to Facebook, all 
the way down the line, that is doing the very same thing to the 
children in our country.
  A ban on TikTok does not solve the problem because young people in 
our country are still going to be going to American sites that will 
abuse them. And the Surgeon General tells us that there is a mental 
health crisis amongst young people in our country. This doesn't solve 
the problem. If we are going to deal with it, let's deal with it, but 
let's step back and understand that it is not just a TikTok issue; it 
is social media in general.
  A TikTok ban would impose serious consequences on millions of 
Americans who depend upon the app for social connections and for their 
economic livelihood. We cannot allow this to happen.
  I will urge the U.S. Senate to adopt my legislation to give the whole 
process an additional 270 days for us to debate it in a way in which we 
did not debate it last year on the Senate floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask that the vote begin at this 
moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Motion to Proceed

  The question occurs on the motion to proceed.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Mullin).
  Further, if present and voting: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Graham) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Fetterman), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from 
California (Mr. Padilla), and the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) 
are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 82, nays 10, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 2 Leg.]

                                YEAS--82

     Alsobrooks
     Baldwin
     Banks
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gallego
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     McCormick
     Moran
     Moreno
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Ossoff
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Sheehy
     Slotkin
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--10

     Booker
     Hirono
     Kim
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Smith
     Warren

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Fetterman
     Graham
     Mullin
     Murray
     Padilla
     Schiff
  The motion was agreed to.

                          ____________________