{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2025-01-15-pt1-PgS161", "2025-01-15", 119, 1, null, null, "LEGISLATIVE SESSION", "SENATE", "SENATE", "SLEGISLATIVE", "S161", "S182", "[{\"name\": \"John Barrasso\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Marsha Blackburn\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"James Lankford\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Shelley Moore Capito\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John Hoeven\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ted Budd\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Todd Young\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Pete Ricketts\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Joni Ernst\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Brian Schatz\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Christopher Murphy\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jeff Merkley\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Tim Kaine\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Cory A. Booker\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Sheldon Whitehouse\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Ben Ray Lujan\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Peter Welch\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Edward J. Markey\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jacky Rosen\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Catherine Cortez Masto\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John Cornyn\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Bernard Sanders\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Tom Cotton\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Christopher A. Coons\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Richard J. Durbin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John Thune\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"5\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"5\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"103\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"103\"}]", "171 Cong. Rec. S161", "Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 8 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S161-S182]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION\n\n                                 ______\n\n                        LAKEN RILEY ACT--Resumed\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will\nresume consideration of S. 5, which the clerk will report.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       A bill (S. 5) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security\n     to take into custody aliens who have been charged in the\n     United States with theft, and for other purposes.\n\n  Pending:\n\n       Thune (for Ernst/Grassley) Amendment No. 8, to include\n     crimes resulting in death or serious bodily injury to the\n     list of offenses that, if committed by an inadmissible alien,\n     require mandatory detention.\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.\n\n                          Cabinet Nominations\n\n  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, yesterday I watched closely the\nnomination hearing for Pete Hegseth. He is President Trump's nominee to\nbe Secretary of Defense.\n  For the safety and security of our Nation, Pete deserves a swift,\nswift confirmation. I am going to vote for him to be the next Secretary\nof Defense, and I believe that vote is going to happen soon.\n  He was very clear in the hearing yesterday, the incoming\nadministration is going to refocus the Pentagon on American strength\nand on hard power--not a woke agenda, which is what we have seen for\nthe last 4 years.\n  To me, this is very welcome news, and I believe it is welcome news to\nAmericans all across this country who are worried about the security of\nour Nation and the strength of our Nation.\n  We have a significant problem in the military today. It is a problem\nwith morale and a problem with recruitment. Pete Hegseth is the right\nperson to address both of these issues and to make sure that we--\nAmerica--have a military that is ready to fight. Pete served in combat\nat the height of the war on terror. He deployed overseas to Iraq, to\nAfghanistan, and to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.\n  He is a decorated veteran. He has earned two Bronze Stars. He also\nearned the Combat Infantryman's badge. When Pete's executive officer\nevaluated his performance in Iraq, the feedback was glowing. Pete, he\nsaid, was ``an incredibly talented, battle-proven leader.''\n\n       Incredibly talented, battle-proven leader.\n\n  He ``always [completed] every mission to high standards with minimal\nguidance or supervision.'' That is what you want.\n  Now, I heard Senator Schumer ask on this floor: Why should Americans\nentrust Pete to lead our military? Well, Pete Hegseth answered that\nquestion yesterday.\n  Senator Sheehy asked during the hearing: Are you going to have the\nbacks of the warfighters? To which our nominee said, yes, he will have\ntheir backs. That is why Americans should trust Pete to lead our\nmilitary.\n  It is interesting to hear my Democrat colleagues dismiss Pete's years\nof military service. They sounded angry about his plan to restore\nAmerican strength. They seemed frustrated that he clearly loves our\ncountry and wants to continue to serve. Democrats tried to turn\nyesterday's hearing into a kangaroo court. They claimed that Pete isn't\nqualified.\n\n[[Page S162]]\n\n  So let's talk about his military experience. The Department of\nDefense is filled with people who have decades of experience working in\nthe Pentagon. The Pentagon just failed its seventh--seventh--\nconsecutive audit. Think about that for a second.\n  Each year, the American taxpayers send the Pentagon more than $850\nbillion--billion with ``b''--yet the Pentagon can't pass a single\naudit. Look, it sounds like we don't need more experience like that. We\nneed a fresh set of eyes, a soldier--as Pete said himself--with dirt on\nhis boots.\n  Being Secretary of Defense isn't just about managing a bureaucracy;\nit is about making America's military the best and most lethal fighting\nforce in the world. Pete is going to be a Secretary of Defense who\nrespects the warfighter and who respects the taxpayer. He is a bold\nchoice for the future of our military, a bold choice for the future of\nour Nation, and the right choice to be Secretary of Defense.\n  A Senate confirmation is not an easy process, and the Secretary of\nDefense is not an easy job. Yesterday, Pete gave strong answers to\ntough questions. He is confident, and he is knowledgeable. He is ready\nto lead the Department of Defense.\n  He knows the cost of war. He knows the price of weakness, and the\ntrue value and the valor of American soldiers.\n  As Secretary of Defense, he is going to reestablish deterrence and\nrebuild our military. He is going to champion American servicemembers\nand restore American military readiness.\n  Pete is going to bring the Pentagon back to what its mission should\nbe: lethality, accountability, transparency, merit. The focus is going\nto be on military readiness, not social experiments and partisan\npolicies.\n  America needs a strong Secretary of Defense now, immediately. Senate\nRepublicans will get it done.\n\n                                  S. 5\n\n  Mr. President, today the Senate is considering amendments to the\nLaken Riley Act. The Laken Riley Act is actually bipartisan\nlegislation. It is a lifesaving bill. It is a lifesaving bill that is\ngoing to lock up illegal immigrants and then deport them.\n  Republicans are offering targeted amendments to make this bill even\nstronger. Senator Ernst has an amendment that would detain illegal\nimmigrants who commit murder or cause serious bodily injury. Senator\nCornyn has an amendment that will detain illegal immigrants who attack\nlaw enforcement officers.\n  Those are the type of amendments that Republicans are discussing to\nstrengthen the bill. I know there is some Democrats who are trying to\nundermine the bill. They want to replace it with thousands of pages of\nimmigration reform.\n  I have said this before, and it bears repeating: Republicans are not\ngoing to undermine or weaken this lifesaving bill.\n  The Laken Riley Act is not comprehensive immigration reform. It is a\ntargeted piece of tough immigration enforcement. Republicans aren't\ngoing to trade American lives for amnesty. We will make the law that\nputs the safety of the American people first. That is what Americans\nvoted for in November: safety, security, for our communities, for our\ncitizens.\n  Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was recently asked about the\nbipartisan Laken Riley Act. This is what he said, he said: Pretend that\nyou are in a parking lot in a Wal-Mart in Scranton, PA, as we are out\ntraveling around the State in our own home States.\n  He said: Well, I am going to vote against a bill that allows people\nto deport people that are charged with a crime or have a criminal\nrecord?\n  To me, I hope others will listen to Senator Fetterman and hear those\nwords and realize how ridiculous it sounds that anyone would vote\nagainst the Laken Riley Act.\n  The Laken Riley Act deserves strong, targeted amendments and swift\npassage in this body and then signed into law by the President.\n  I yield the floor.\n  I suggest the absence of a quorum.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mullin). The clerk will call the roll.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.\n  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order\nfor the quorum call be rescinded.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  The Senator from Tennessee.\n\n                 United Nations Relief and Works Agency\n\n  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I have to say, I think the remarks I\nplanned today are so pertinent to what is taking place in our world as\nwe are hearing about the Trump effect actually bringing forward a deal\nwith Israel, Hamas, and the hostages because my remarks today are\ncentered on UNRWA, the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine\nRefugees.\n  Now, this has been one of the biggest obstacles to peace in the\nMiddle East. To the world, UNRWA presents itself as an aid group for\nPalestinians. But, in reality, this agency--this U.N. agency that has\nbeen the recipient of 7.1 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars--is nothing\nmore than a terror group that works to undermine Israel's security and\nsafety. We have known this for years, but in the aftermath of the Hamas\nbarbaric October 7 attack on the Jewish State, we have learned much\nmore about UNRWA's terror ties.\n  Early last year, the Wall Street Journal reported that 10 percent of\nUNRWA's staff have ties to Islamist militant groups. Among them, 6 took\npart in the October 7 assault that left 1,200 Israelis dead and\nhundreds more in captivity.\n  After reports emerged that an UNRWA teacher held an Israeli hostage\nin his attic, I pressed the agency to investigate that employee.\nInstead of taking action, the group dismissed this request and this\nclaim as ``unsubstantiated'' and called on the Israeli journalist who\nreported the news to ``immediately delete the post.''\n  We also know that UNRWA has indoctrinated Palestinian children with\nschools that glorify terrorism and promote violent hatred of Jews,\nallowed Hamas to store weapons in their buildings, and provided support\nand aid to the terror group.\n  Now, a new report from UN Watch, the top watchdog for holding the\nU.N. accountable, shows that UNRWA works with Hamas, as well as\nPalestinian Islamic Jihad, at the highest level of the agency. To quote\nthe report, ``this secret relationship allows the terrorist\norganizations to significantly influence the policies and practices of\na UN agency with 30,000 employees, and $1.5 billion annual budget that\nis funded primarily by Western states.\n  The evidence is overwhelming. In 2017, UNRWA's then-Commissioner\nGeneral met with leaders of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad to\nstrengthen--in his words--``a spirit of partnership.'' To protect the\nagency's credibility, however, the Commissioner General urged the\nterror leaders to ensure that ``discussions not be made public.''\n  Of course, open collaboration with U.S.-designated terror groups\ncould jeopardize the millions it receives from Western countries every\nyear. So they tried to cover it up so that they could keep getting\nthese millions and billions of dollars--as I said, U.S. taxpayers, 7.1\nbillion that has gone into this group.\n  In the years since, UNRWA leaders have repeatedly pledged support for\nPalestinian terrorists. That same year, the agency's Lebanon director\ntold terror leaders that UNRWA hoped to have a strong partnership with\nthem. A year later, their program director in Lebanon met with a Hamas\nofficial to discuss ``ongoing cooperation and coordination.''\n  Also in 2018, a former UNRWA official appeared at a rally alongside\nHamas terror leaders who urged support for UNRWA ``until we return to\nPalestine''--meaning the end of Israel as a Jewish State. The UNRWA\nofficial, of course, thanked the terrorist ``for their understanding.''\n  In 2021, the former Deputy Commissioner General of UNRWA met with\nSinwar--now, that is the Hamas leader who later planned the October 7\nattack--after one of her employees admitted on TV that Israel's strikes\non Hamas are ``very precise.''\n  In response, the Deputy Commissioner General removed the employee\nfrom his position and thanked Sinwar for ``his positivity and desire to\ncontinue cooperation in facilitating the agency's work in the Gaza\nStrip.''\n  You see there is a pattern here of participation between UNRWA and\nbetween Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. This is just a sample of\nthe\n\n[[Page S163]]\n\nhigh-level meetings between leaders of UNRWA and these groups. The list\ncould go on and on and on. What this report makes very clear is that\nUNRWA's support for terror groups is not something that happens at the\nagency's fringes. Instead, supporting and enabling terrorism against\nIsrael is UNRWA's main purpose.\n  I want to say that again: UNRWA's support for these terrorist groups\nis not just at the fringes. It is with their leadership. They are\nsupporting and enabling terrorism against Israel, and we need to\nrealize this.\n  This is why President Trump canceled U.S. funding to the agency\nduring his first administration, and it is why President Biden's\ndecision in 2021 to restore that funding--over $730 million that year--\nwas a huge mistake.\n  After the October 7 attack, I led the charge in introducing\nlegislation to defund UNRWA, and, in March of last year, President\nBiden finally signed into law a 1-year ban on that funding.\n  With all we know about UNRWA, though, we need to make this ban\npermanent, which is why I am working on legislation that will do just\nthat once we get a new President and once we begin to say no to these\norganizations who take taxpayer dollars and turn around and use it\nagainst the American people, use it for pro-terror, pro-violence\norganizations and groups.\n  I yield the floor.\n  I suggest the absence of a quorum.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.\n  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.\n  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order\nfor the quorum call be rescinded.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n\n                                  S. 5\n\n  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, you will see for the next hour a whole\ngroup of Republicans coming to the floor to be able to talk about one\nissue: our need for border security and safer communities. This is\nsomething that not just Republicans in the Senate are talking about;\nthis is something that the American people spoke loudly and clearly\nabout during the last election when they elected President Trump, a\nRepublican Senate, and a Republican House. There is not a single Member\nwho is a Republican in this body, in the House, or, clearly, President\nTrump, who didn't talk about border security and safer communities\nthroughout the entire election.\n  Every single poll showed that this was one of the priority issues\nthat every single American was thinking about. A Gallup poll last year\nfound that more than three-quarters of Americans support increasing the\nnumber of Border Patrol agents; that two-thirds of Americans want the\nPresident and the Homeland Security Secretary to temporarily halt all\nasylum requests when the border is overwhelmed; and third, a majority\nof Americans support expanding border wall construction. People want a\nsecure community.\n  On the floor this week--we started last week and are still debating\nit this week--is what to do on what is called the Laken Riley Act. Some\nAmericans are familiar with Laken Riley's story; some are not. Laken\nRiley was a college student in Georgia who was brutally murdered by a\nVenezuelan who came into the United States illegally, was detained at\nthe border, but then released. He traveled around the country wherever\nhe wanted to under a parole system that was given to him at the border\nin 2022. He committed a crime, was arrested for that crime, and then\nwas released. He committed another crime--shoplifting. He was arrested\nfor that crime and was then released. The third crime, as far as we\nknow--there might have been many more, but the third crime, as far as\nwe know, was his murder of Laken Riley.\n  He should have never been in the United States. He should have never\nbeen paroled at the border. He should have been detained and then\ndeported, but he wasn't. He was paroled into the United States. When he\ncommitted a crime in the United States, he should have been deported,\nbut he was not. He was released. When he committed a second crime in\nthe United States, he should have been deported, but he wasn't. He was\nreleased--before he ever got to murder.\n  The Laken Riley Act is pretty simple. It says: If someone is here\nillegally and they commit a crime in the United States of stealing\nAmericans' stuff, like he did, that he is deported. I don't think it is\na radical concept to be able to say that Americans don't want someone\nto come into the country illegally and take their stuff. Why this is\neven a challenge to be able to pass this, I have no idea. This passed\nin the House last session, but the Senate never took it up to even\ndiscuss it.\n  If I go to any of the great 4 million Oklahomans in my State and I\nsay ``What do you think about someone illegally coming into the country\nand stealing people's stuff? Do you think that is OK, that they should\nstill be able to stay?'' I don't think I would find anybody of the 4\nmillion Oklahomans who would say ``I am OK with someone illegally\ncoming into the country, stealing people's stuff'' and say ``You can go\nahead and stay.''\n  That is all that this bill does. It says that if someone comes into\nthis country illegally and starts stealing stuff, they are detained;\nthey are held. They are not just allowed to be released to be able to\ndrift around the country to steal other things or to commit a murder\nlater. If they come into our country illegally and start stealing\nthings, they are detained, and they will go through the rest of the\nlegal process. It doesn't mean they are automatically deported the very\nnext day. They still have a legal challenge there. They can have their\nlegal challenge. But they are not going to just wander around the\ncountry.\n  That is why we believe this Laken Riley Act is so important. It is\nbecause we never, ever, ever, ever want to have another American who is\nmurdered by someone illegally present here, especially someone who had\nalready committed multiple crimes before they ever got to that murder.\n  So let's have the debate. I am willing to be able to talk to any one\nof my Democratic or Republican colleagues who has a question about\nthis, but at the base of this is, why would we let someone who is\nalready illegally present in the country and who we already know has\ncommitted additional crimes just continue to walk our streets just to\ncommit more crimes? Why would we not detain those individuals?\n  On Monday, President Trump will be inaugurated. I am looking forward\nto working with him and seeing even what happens on day one to be able\nto secure the border. This is something the American people want. They\nwant a border that is secure; they want communities that are secure;\nand they want just basic commonsense things done, like if someone\nbreaks into our country and then steals stuff, they are actually\ndetained rather than just released to go do it again. Let's at least do\nthe basics that we can do while we continue to be able to work toward\nthe big projects that still need to be done.\n  Multiple of my colleagues will be coming in the moments ahead to talk\nthrough this same issue because we feel like, on this side, it is\nincredibly important we get this done.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.\n  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, this week, the Senate is proud to take\nanother step forward toward securing our southern border as we consider\nthe Laken Riley Act. I want to extend my deep gratitude to Senator\nKatie Britt and Senator Ted Budd for their leadership in bringing this\nbill forward.\n  First and foremost, I want to say that I strongly support this\nmeasure. With this bill, the Senate will be taking a bold step for the\nsafety and prosperity of American citizens after 4 years of\nmismanagement and decline and, ultimately, chaos at the border.\n  The Laken Riley Act is the answer to a loud and clear call made at\nthe ballot box by the American people to unite us as a country, to put\nAmerica first, and to address the tragic lawlessness that we see on our\nsouthern border. So in the Senate's first order of legislative\nbusiness, we are answering that call.\n  The radical open border policies of the left have caused untold\nsuffering to families across the Nation--families like the Riley\nfamily, who is still grieving the unimaginable loss of their beautiful\ndaughter Laken.\n  Laken was just 22 years old--a young nursing student with a promising\nfuture ahead of her. Tragically, she was stolen from this Earth by an\nindividual who should have never been allowed to\n\n[[Page S164]]\n\nroam free in this country. Laken should be alive today, and she would\nhave been if her killer had been brought to justice before it was too\nlate. In Laken, we lost a bright and beautiful soul, as those who knew\nher will attest.\n  The law should serve our citizens, yet it has somehow been Laken's\nkiller who has benefited from our system. It is time we honor Laken's\nlegacy by putting American citizens first.\n  The Laken Riley Act, while too late to prevent Laken's tragedy, is a\ntargeted bill that will save countless other lives. It will ensure that\nother illegal immigrants who are not dissimilar to her killer are\ndetained for their crimes before they get a chance to commit another\nand maybe a more serious offense. Anyone who has entered the United\nStates illegally and then committed a crime should and will face\ndetention and deportation. It sounds like common sense to me. Laken's\nkiller was arrested three times and released three times--once at the\nborder, again in New York City, and a third time in Athens, GA, mere\nweeks before he took Laken's life. That will not happen and cannot\nhappen under the Laken Riley Act.\n  This is a problem that cannot be ignored or explained away or made\ntrivial. The American people demand change. The American people want us\nto fix this system that failed to uphold the law and failed to keep\nLaken safe. Her cause is their cause. It is the cause of every mother,\nevery father, every brother, every sister--of a young girl who simply\nwants to go to school and then go out for a run in her neighborhood and\nfeel safe.\n  I know, at its core, this is truly a bipartisan issue. We all want to\nkeep our communities safe--all Republicans and Democrats. Our\nRepublican conference is completely unified behind the Laken Riley Act,\nand we have managed to win over a majority of Senate Democrats for the\nbill's initial consideration, including two who have signed on as\ncosponsors. As my Democrat colleague from Pennsylvania has noted, the\nfailure to pass this bill would represent everything that is wrong with\nCongress.\n  The truth is, the American citizens have had enough talk, especially\nafter these last 4 years. Now is the time for action. That is what the\nelection was about--action, not empty words. This week, we will have\nbefore us a tranche of critical votes that America will be intently\nwatching.\n  To the families watching who have lost loved ones, like the Riley\nfamily, we stand with you. We feel your grief and your pain, and we\nwill guard against this heartbreak ever happening again.\n  Now more than ever, it is incumbent upon my colleagues and me to\nsupport America's families and pass the strongest possible bill for our\ncommunities.\n  With that, I look forward to advancing the Laken Riley Act this week.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.\n  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues in looking\nforward to January 20, when we can turn the page on the failed border\npolicies of the Biden-Harris administration and get back to the\ncommonsense--commonsense--approach to border security under President\nDonald Trump.\n  During 4 years of the Biden-Harris border policies, our country saw\nthe highest annual total of illegal alien crossings, the highest\nmonthly total of illegal alien crossings, and the highest total of\nindividuals on the Terror Watchlist attempting to cross our border.\n  These are the plain and simple facts. The Biden-Harris administration\nhas made our country less safe, less secure, and more vulnerable to\nthreats from abroad.\n  The American people saw beyond the Biden-Harris administration's\nfalse claims that the border was secure and last November gave a very\nclear and compelling mandate: Secure the border. Secure the border.\n  Already, the new Republican Senate majority is taking a first step to\nprotect the American people against the consequences of the Biden-\nHarris administration's policies by working to pass the Laken Riley\nAct.\n  Under this bill, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will be\nrequired to detain illegal immigrants who have committed theft-related\noffenses and issue an immigration detainer request to local law\nenforcement for illegal aliens who have committed related crimes.\n  The legislation can empower States to hold Federal officials\naccountable when they fail to enforce Federal immigration law.\n  This important legislation is one we should have never had to pass,\nbut because the Biden-Harris administration played politics with our\ncountry's borders and immigration policy, Senate Republicans are here\ntoday ready to work on behalf of the American people.\n  Working with the Trump administration, we will prioritize the\nenforcement of policies that protect our southern border, which include\nreinstating the Migrant Protection Protocols or ``Remain in Mexico''\npolicy, enforcing safe third-country agreements, and resuming\nconstruction of the border wall.\n  In his first 100 days in office, President Biden revoked 94 Trump-era\nExecutive orders and reversed crucial border security policies.\n  In less than a week, President-elect Trump will be sworn into office.\nHe has committed to taking Executive action on day one to reinstate the\npolicies that will secure our border. I look forward to these changes\nand working further to address the crisis created under the Biden-\nHarris administration.\n  I also look forward to the debate that will take place in the coming\nweeks regarding how Republicans will secure the border through\nreconciliation. We are already hard at work on that. This will be an\nimportant legislative tool that will help refocus resources so that the\nprofessionals at ICE, CBP, and U.S. Border Patrol can focus on the\nmission of securing our border, removing criminal aliens who should not\nbe in the United States, and addressing potential threats to the\nhomeland.\n  To accomplish these goals, we must recruit and retain more border\nsecurity professionals, modernize our border security tools like\nautonomous towers, and better utilize technology like the counter-\nunmanned aircraft systems along the border. The cause of these threats\nto our homeland is clear: President Biden's failure to secure the\nsouthern border.\n  Senate Republicans stand ready to work with President Trump to\nadvance the policies that kept our border secure during his first\nadministration. That is exactly what my colleagues and I will be\nworking to accomplish every day in the coming months because border\nsecurity is national security.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.\n  Mr. BUDD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for\nhis comments in support of this legislation.\n  One of the highest priorities of the next administration is securing\nthe southern border, restoring law and order, and reversing the\ndangerous open border policies of President Biden. Too many Americans\nhave felt the tragic consequences of these policies.\n  One of them was a woman named Laken Riley. She was a nursing student\nat the University of Georgia, and last year an illegal immigrant from\nVenezuela murdered her while she was out on an early morning jog.\n  What makes this story all the more devastating was that the killer\nshould have been stopped but wasn't. He should have been stopped at the\nborder in 2022, but he was paroled into this country. He should have\nbeen detained when he was arrested in New York in 2023 but wasn't. He\nshould have been detained when he was arrested in Georgia for\nshoplifting, but he wasn't. The chain of these events is downright\nshameful.\n  We must make sure that these don't ever happen again, and that is why\nI worked with my good friend Senator Katie Britt of Alabama to\nreintroduce the Laken Riley Act.\n  This bill would require ICE to issue detainers and take into custody\nillegal aliens who commit crimes like theft and shoplifting.\n  We need to stop these individuals when they commit minor crimes\nbefore they are able to commit major crimes like the horrific murder of\nLaken Riley.\n  The Laken Riley Act will empower the Trump administration to enforce\nour laws, keep our Nation secure, and prevent--prevent--tragedies.\n\n[[Page S165]]\n\n  Ladies and gentlemen, this is common sense. But if you stay here in\nWashington long enough, you will sometimes feel that common sense is\nnot all that common.\n  But I appreciate the newfound bipartisanship that seems to have\nbroken out on Capitol Hill on this issue. It is wonderful. Dozens of\nDemocrats have now supported the Laken Riley Act. I want to welcome\nthem to the cause of law and order.\n  But a word here about amendments. And I thank Leader Thune, who I\nthink is off to a wonderful start, and I appreciate his leadership. He\nis open, as he promised, to amendments--several on this side of the\naisle and several on the other. But let's just say that some of our\nfriends on the other side of the aisle, they have an amendment. And\nlet's say that it doesn't get the amount of votes. Let's not use that\nas a pretext for them not supporting this bill. Let's support this. And\nthen you have our commitment to go back and work on that and take a\nlook at that specific legislation that they were trying to introduce by\namendment. But please don't use the failure of said amendment to not\nsupport this very important legislation.\n  It is my hope that we can continue in this spirit and make sure that\nthe Laken Riley Act is passed by both Chambers and signed into law by\nour Nation's 47th President, Donald J. Trump.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.\n  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, President Biden is spending his final days\nin office on a valedictory tour.\n  Now, here is one accomplishment he won't mention: a crisis on our\nsouthern border which has spread chaos across our country, flooded our\ncommunities with fentanyl, and cost innocent American lives.\n  Now, it is correct to call this one of President Biden's\n``accomplishments.'' He intentionally reversed the Trump\nadministration's border policies as soon as he reached the Oval Office,\nand it was by design--by design--that millions of migrants who\nillegally crossed our southern border were released into our country.\nThis self-inflicted disaster will be a major part of President Biden's\nignominious legacy, and it is, in part, why Americans chose to return\nPresident Trump to office in November.\n  When the American people voted for a Republican President and a\nRepublican Congress, they were voting to restore the rule of law at the\nborder. They were demanding that their government fulfill its\nconstitutionally delegated duty to provide for their national security.\nThey were demanding that their government do that, and they were\narguing, correctly, that it is not discrimination for a nation to\ndemand that those who seek to call it home do so legally.\n  The American people want the return of commonsense immigration\npolicy; that is all. That is what I hear back home. But you see, this\nwasn't possible under President Biden.\n  Beginning next week, we will have a new President, and there will be\nno excuses. The open-border policies must end. Criminal migrants must\ngo. The number of Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement\nofficers must be increased. Barriers to illegal entry must be expanded\nand enlarged. Republicans are working on legislation which will help\naccomplish all of these things and improve the security of our border,\njust like the American people expect.\n  It will be too little, too late for the family of Laken Riley,\nthough. Of course, she should still be with us today. The man who\nmurdered her last February should have never set foot in America. Her\ndeath was preventable. Her killer entered this country illegally and\nwas quickly paroled. Then he was sent, at taxpayer expense, to New\nYork, where he was arrested and released. If that was the end of the\nstory, it would still be an outrage and an indictment of the failed\nBiden administration. But from there, he went to Georgia, you see--all\ncourtesy of taxpayers--where he was arrested and freed again before\nbrutally murdering Laken Riley.\n  Weakening border enforcement, incentivizing criminals with specious\nasylum claims to cross our border, failing to detain and deport these\nvery same people for crimes committed far away from it--these were the\npolicies that led to Laken's death. This cannot happen again. It can't\nhappen again to another American or to their family. That is why we\nneed to pass the Laken Riley Act. It won't singlehandedly end the\ncrisis at our southern border, no. That is not its objective. But it is\nan important first step in the broader mission we have been assigned by\nthe American people.\n  Homeland Security must detain migrants charged with crimes--here\nagain, common sense--crimes like shoplifting, one of the crimes for\nwhich Laken's killer was arrested. The bill we are currently debating,\nthe Laken Riley Act, requires that they do this and that we meet the\nobjectives of the American people as it relates to border security.\n  You see, enforcing immigration law is a national security priority. I\nbegan emphasizing this years ago. I know so many other Americans\nbelieve this in their bones. It is time Washington started acting like\nit.\n  So this bill is one of many steps we should take to reverse the Biden\nadministration's open border policies. Stop the madness. Stop the\nmadness. I plead with my colleagues to support the Laken Riley Act. We\nshould pass it now.\n  Let President Biden have his victory tour. But starting next week,\nthe insanity ends, and we begin to secure our border.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.\n  Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, President Biden's open border policies\nhave created a national security, humanitarian, and drug catastrophe in\nour country. In 2023, law enforcement encounters at the border found\n169 people on the FBI's Terrorist Watchlist. In previous years, under\nthe Trump administration, that number was in the single digits. We have\nhad 10.5 million border encounters since Biden took office.\n  On a single day in December, U.S. Customs and Border Protection\nencountered 12,600 people trying to illegally enter into our country.\nThat is just along the southern border--12,600. It set an alltime,\nsingle-day record for the number of people trying to break into our\ncountry.\n  In years past, administration officials have said: If there are 1,000\npeople encountered at our southern border trying to get in, that is a\ncrisis.\n  So 12,600 is a catastrophe.\n  Record amounts of deadly drugs have also flown into our country since\nPresident Biden opened our borders. We experienced this directly in\nNebraska. In 2019, when I was Governor, Nebraska law enforcement took\n46 pills laced with fentanyl off of our streets--46. Then, after Biden\nbecame President, in just the first 6 months of 2021, Nebraska law\nenforcement took 151,000 pills off our streets--from 46 to 151,000.\n  While I was Governor, after Biden became President, we saw that our\nlaw enforcement started confiscating twice as much methamphetamine, 3\ntimes as much fentanyl, and 10 times as much cocaine because of our\nopen southern border and the cartels taking advantage of it.\n  And just like all around the country, our young people paid the price\nas well. Taryn Lee Griffith was a young mom of two who took a pill that\nwas laced with fentanyl and died because of it. The single largest\nkiller of Americans 18 to 45 is fentanyl overdose, all facilitated by\nPresident Biden's open border policies along our southern border.\n  Jose Ibarra was a different kind of problem. Jose Ibarra was a\nVenezuelan national who crossed our border illegally in the Texas area\nand asked for asylum.\n  His wife said he just wanted a better job, but regardless, the Biden\nadministration released him into this country. He was bused to New York\nCity, and there he was arrested for ``acting in a manner to endanger a\nchild under the age of 17.''\n  However, New York City is a sanctuary city. He was not detained or\ndeported, as he ought to have been. He was released. He made his way to\nGeorgia, and once again he was arrested; this time for shoplifting. But\nonce again he was not detained or deported by Immigration and Customs\nEnforcement.\n  And because he was not, he went on to brutally murder Laken Riley.\nThis\n\n[[Page S166]]\n\ntragedy could have been avoided if President Biden had been protecting\nour southern border, if illegal immigrants were being detained and\ndeported. People who break the laws in our country need to be held\naccountable. That is what the Laken Riley Act does.\n  It requires Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain people who\nare breaking our laws. When people come here illegally, and they are\nbreaking our laws, they need to be held accountable. With the Laken\nRiley Act, if you are committing theft, burglary, shoplifting, you will\nbe detained and tragedies like Laken Riley can be avoided.\n  This is just common sense that we need to enforce our laws. To me, it\nis common sense that we need to protect our borders. And thank\ngoodness, starting in a few days, we will have a President who\nunderstands the safety of the American people is the priority, and\nPresident Trump will secure our borders.\n  The election results were overwhelming; President Trump has a mandate\nto secure our borders. Senate Republicans will stand up to help him do\njust that. The Laken Riley Act is our first step to be able to help him\ndo that. And I call upon my colleagues from the other side of the aisle\nto continue to support this bill as they have done on the previous\nvotes.\n  Let's get this bill passed. Let's make sure other families don't have\nto live through the tragedy that Laken Riley's family had to live\nthrough.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.\n  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, our Nation, this body, and the American\npeople are all too familiar with stories like Laken Riley's, the 22-\nyear-old nursing student beaten to death by an illegal immigrant, one\nwho was already in police custody in New York City before being let go.\n  Unfortunately, after 4 years of Biden's open border, this\nheartbreaking story has become too commonplace. Hardly a day goes by\nwithout hearing of another American who has fallen victim to crimes\nperpetrated by the illegal immigrants the Biden administration let\nflood into our country.\n  And worse, too many times an illegal immigrant arrested for a violent\ncrime posts bail, never to be heard from again, escaping through\nloopholes in the law.\n  This crisis only continues. While these tragedies should have never\nhappened in the first place, my colleagues and I are taking action to\nensure they never happen again.\n  My legislation, Sarah's Law, in conjunction with the Laken Riley Act\nwill close these loopholes, so our laws no longer prioritize illegal\nimmigrants over our own citizens.\n  Working to secure the border and protect Americans is not a new fight\nfor me, but it became personal nearly 9 years ago. On January 31--so at\nthe end of this month--marks 9 years since Iowans Michelle Root and\nScott Root, whom I know personally, woke up to every parent's worst\nnightmare. Their daughter, Sarah, was killed by a drunk driver who was\nan illegal immigrant.\n  Sarah--and she is a beautiful, young woman. She was 21 years old, she\nwas from Council Bluffs, and she had just graduated from Bellevue\nUniversity in Nebraska with a 4.0 GPA.\n  She had her bachelor's degree in criminal investigations. She was\nheaded home after celebrating this really important milestone with her\nfamily and her friends. Sarah had her entire life ahead of her; but,\ninstead, an illegal immigrant, Edwin Mejia, who was drunk driving with\na blood alcohol level three times over the legal limit struck and\nkilled her.\n  One would think that Sarah's killer would clearly meet Immigration\nand Customs Enforcement's enforcement priorities. But, no, citing the\nObama administration's November 2014 memo, ICE declined to take custody\nof Mejia, despite his repeated driving offenses and history of skipping\ncourt dates.\n  Before the Root family could even lay Sarah to rest, her murderer\nposted bond and was released, never to be seen again.\n  To rub salt in the wound, the Biden administration removed Mejia from\nICE's Most Wanted list.\n  Since then, I have warned repeatedly against the dangers of letting\nillegal immigrants--who have already broken our laws--roam the country\nand continue their lawlessness.\n  I have continually called on this body to step up and protect\ninnocent Americans from criminals who are here in our country illegally\nand pass my bill: Sarah's Law.\n  A loophole in the law means Sarah's killer escaped justice. But\ntoday, we can do something to ensure no other family has to go through\nthe pain and the grief that Sarah's parents, Scott and Michelle, still\nfeel from their heartbreaking day.\n  My bill named in Sarah's honor would close the alarming loophole that\nlet Sarah's killer go free.\n  It would simply require ICE to detain illegal immigrants charged with\nkilling or seriously injuring another person, so they do not disappear\nbefore facing justice.\n  It is common sense, folks. No parent should have to endure the pain\nof losing a child like the Root family did. But, unfortunately, the\nRiley family is experiencing this same heartbreak.\n  Sarah's and Laken's deaths are both tragic and, unfortunately, are\ndoomed to be repeated if we don't close the loopholes in that law.\nThose who come here illegally and harm our citizens should, without\nquestion, be detained so they face justice.\n  Again, folks, this is common sense. We can no longer prioritize\nillegal immigrants over public safety. We must pass the Laken Riley Act\nand Sarah's Law to send this message loud and clear for Sarah's family,\nfor Laken's family, and for the countless American families that this\naction would protect.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.\n\n                          Trump Administration\n\n  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, after months of swearing up and down that\nthey were focused on lowering the price of eggs, the price of\ngroceries, the price of gas, the price of insurance--that was what the\nlast election was about, right? It was about inflation. It was about\nthe amount that people were paying. That is what the last election was\nabout. Interestingly, the very first thing that Donald Trump and the\nRepublicans have decided to do is to cut taxes for billionaire\ncorporations, and they are going to pay for it by ripping off working\nAmericans.\n  Now, that might sound like a political talking point. It sounds too\nconvenient, too absurd. How can you spend 4 years pounding on the party\nin power about how much people are getting hit in the pocketbook--and\nthey were. And they were. The price of eggs; the price of utilities;\nthe price of gasoline--still in Hawaii around 4.59 a gallon. People are\nstill paying too much. Yet the first order of business is not to do\nanything about that. It is not to do anything about that. It is to cut\ntaxes for the wealthiest international corporations in human history.\n  I am here today with my Senate Democratic colleagues, and I want to\nmake a sort of broader point. As Democrats struggle through, learn\nabout, argue about what went wrong over the last 2 to 4 years\npolitically, one of things that we did not do well enough is stay on\nthe same theme. This place gets crazy, and it is especially crazy with\nDonald Trump as President. I remember, and it is distracting.\n  Even in the best of circumstances, people fly home, and then they\narrive on Monday. There is a 5:30 vote, and oftentimes, the last vote\nis on Thursday at 1:45. So we talk about one thing from Monday at 5:30\nuntil Thursday at 1:45, and the thing we talk about is often whatever\nis on the floor or whatever is in committee. We are going to do that.\nWe have to do that. We have to comment on what we are working on. But\nwe are also going to talk about this rip-off tax bill because that\nillustrates the difference between the parties. That is going to\nillustrate in three dimensions that all of this talk about lowering\ncosts was a lie.\n  I am here with my Senate Democratic colleagues, including members of\nthe Senate Finance Committee, led by Senator Wyden on the Democratic\nside, who will be on the forefront of this particular fight. We are not\nhere because we are surprised that Republicans are going to raise and\nnot lower costs because we know that was the plan all along. We are not\nhere because we are shocked that Republicans want to cut taxes for the\nultrawealthy. They do that like clockwork every time they\n\n[[Page S167]]\n\nwin the House and the Senate and the Presidency. We are here because\nnothing can distract us from the reality of what is about to happen.\nThis will be a giveaway of the worst kind at a time when people can\nleast afford it.\n  So how do they plan to do it? And this is a little technical, so bear\nwith me. House Republicans are saying that you have to pay for these\ntax cuts, right? You reduce revenue to the government. In order to pay\nfor it, you have to find savings. You have to either get new revenue--\nthat is kind of off the table for Republicans; they don't like new\nrevenue unless it is tariffs, which Americans pay--or you have to cut\nsomething.\n  So last Friday, this document was released--and I understand, if you\nare watching this on your phone or even on CSPAN, it is kind of small,\nright? I get it. This document listed their so-called pay-fors; in\nother words, how are they going to pay for these massive tax cuts for\nthe wealthiest individuals, the wealthiest privately held and publicly\nheld corporations in human history?\n  Here are just a couple of things they are using as so-called pay-\nfors: $700 billion in cuts, kicking millions of people off of Medicaid;\n$500 billion out of Medicare, reducing access to care for seniors\neverywhere; more than $150 billion in cuts to the Affordable Care Act\nsubsidies. What does that mean? If you are on ACA, if you get your\nhealthcare through ACA, the subsidy goes away, and your monthly\ninsurance bill is about to skyrocket. Tens of millions of Americans who\npay for their health insurance through the ACA exchange and receive\nthat subsidy are going to have to pay more. What happens with that\nmoney? It doesn't go for roads. It doesn't go for firehouses. It\ndoesn't go for public health. It goes to this tax cut.\n  I am not exaggerating. This is not a rhetorical flourish. This is not\na political talking point. They are literally cutting Medicare,\nMedicaid, possibly Social Security, the Affordable Care Act, and they\nare going to take all these resources--these are their pay-fors--and\nshovel it to people so that they can continue their private jet\nsubsidies, pay a lower tax rate, eliminate the 15-percent minimum\nbillion-dollar corporation tax.\n  So before we passed the tax legislation when we were in charge, there\nwere lots of the wealthiest corporations, international corporations,\nin the history of the planet that paid zero taxes--zero taxes. So what\ndid we do both to generate money but also because it is a question of\nbasic fairness? We established a minimum rate for these wealthy\ncorporations. They want to eliminate that too. Why? Because this is\nwhat they do. Because that is actually their governing philosophy.\n  You know, they say: Campaign in poetry; govern in prose. That is not\nwhat is happening here. They campaigned on misleading people that their\nabiding concern, their main concern was, gosh, people are paying too\nmuch for a dozen eggs. And I don't mean to diminish that. People were\npaying too much for a dozen eggs. But right now, inflation is 2.7\npercent, and gas in a lot of places across the country is below 3\nbucks. So people were paying too much, and people were rightly pissed\noff--by the way, at Democrats, too, for not recognizing how acute this\nproblem was for a lot of American families. I get it. But I don't know\nanybody who thinks the solution to people paying too much out of pocket\nis to make them pay more out of pocket.\n\n  There is not a single voter that I know--not a single voter that I\nknow--that I have interacted with who says: You know what. Gosh, I wish\nthe highest corporate tax rate were just a little bit lower. Gosh, I\nwish the 15-percent minimum billion-dollar corporation tax were\nrescinded. Gosh, I wish people who are being subsidized so they can\nafford healthcare--I wish we would eliminate that. And, gosh, I wish we\nwould use all that money and shovel it back to the wealthiest people in\nthe world.\n  So we are not going to stop talking about this. I just had two\nhearings with Sean Duffy and Marco Rubio. I know Pam Bondi was today.\nLots of very exciting and interesting things are happening, and we are\ngoing to have to comment on that. We are going to have to engage in\nthat. But every week, we are going to be talking about this rip-off.\nEvery week, every opportunity we get, we are going to be talking about\nthis because this is the difference between the two political parties.\n  With that, I want to yield to my very good friend, who really\nunderstands tax policy and with whom I have been working on this and\nwith whom--we fought together to win the ACA fight many, many years\nago. Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut.\n  I yield the floor.\n  Mr. MURPHY. Thank you very much, Senator.\n  I just can't believe we are talking about something that nobody\nwants, right? That is what this comes down to. The No. 1 priority for\nRepublicans is extending and likely expanding a tax cut that benefits\nthe wealthiest 1 percent, .1 percent in this country at a rate that\ndwarfs--dwarfs--the help for anyone else.\n  The tax cut that we are talking about extending gives a tax cut to\nthe top 1 percent of earners in this country that isn't 10 times bigger\nthan working families at the bottom of the income scale; it is not 100\ntimes bigger; it is not 500 times bigger. Taxpayers in the top 1\npercent will get a tax cut 852 times larger than working families at\nthe bottom of the income threshold--852 times bigger.\n  What we have seen coming out of the pandemic is that while the broad\nmiddle of the country has been struggling, the wealthy have gotten\nricher and richer and richer. We have more billionaires than ever\nbefore in this country. The folks that don't rely on salaries, that can\njust plow their income and their earnings into the capital markets,\nhave reaped huge, huge rewards. So the very, very wealthy in this\ncountry right now, at this moment in time, don't need any more help,\nand yet the average family that is in that top 1 percent bracket is\ngoing to get a tax cut on average of $70,000. Well, if you make $30,000\nin this country, you are going to get about $100 back in your pocket.\n  Of course, the theory is that if you just layer on tax cuts for\ncorporations and for billionaires and millionaires, that money will\neventually trickle down to everybody else, right? That is a lie. That\nis not true. That is a fraud. It has never been true. It has been\nperpetuated on the American public because it is a great way to\nrationalize giving the bulk of tax cuts to the very, very wealthy. The\nidea is that somehow that will make it down to the rest of us. Go on to\nany Main Street of this country, go into any subdivision in your\nState--you won't find many of your constituents who make $50,000 or\n$100,000 or even $200,000 who have had much of that trickle down to\nthem.\n  To Senator Schatz's point, 8 years ago when this tax cut was first\nput into place, it was egregious not because of the balance only but\nalso because the whole thing was borrowed. All that money was just put\non the American credit card--a credit card that comes due and ends up\ngetting paid by middle-class families one way or the other.\n  This time around, I guess the good news is that they are talking\nabout paying for it, not borrowing, to give a huge tax cut to\ncorporations and to billionaires and millionaires. Instead, they are\ntalking about immediately taking money out of the pockets of working\nfamilies and seniors and poor people. Instead of borrowing money and\nhaving the bill come due for middle-class families later, this new tax\ncut for billionaires and corporations is going to be financed by an\nimmediate cut to services and benefits to some of the most vulnerable\npeople in this country.\n  At the end of last year, as a means of passing the continuing\nresolution, there was a deal apparently cut--this is reported in the\npress--in which there was a promise made to finance this tax cut with\n$2 trillion of cuts to Medicaid and Medicare. Medicaid--poor kids, poor\nfamilies. Medicare--seniors in this country.\n  Now, $2 trillion is a hard number to get your head wrapped around,\nbut there is no way to enact $2 trillion--$2 trillion, a ``t''--worth\nof cuts in Medicare and Medicaid without hundreds of thousands of\npeople, senior citizens and poor kids, losing access to care. You are\nliterally--this is not hyperbole--$2 trillion worth of cuts means that\nnursing homes shut down. People are put out on the streets. It means\nthat poor kids don't get access to mental health services.\n\n[[Page S168]]\n\n  So what happened 8 years ago was cruel--a tax cut put on the American\npublic's credit card, 80 percent of the benefits going to the very,\nvery richest, and none of it trickling down. This version that\nRepublicans are talking about passing in a matter of weeks is even more\ncruel because it is the same balance: the benefit going to the very,\nvery wealthy--President-elect Trump's friends who pay to get in and out\nof Mar-a-Lago--but financed immediately by cuts that are going to be\ndevastating for the people in this country who get up every day relying\non programs like Medicare and Medicaid. So I agree with my friend from\nHawaii. We have to be down on the floor talking about this every single\nday.\n\n  Folks thought it was an inevitability 8 years ago when Republicans\nmade it a priority to steal health insurance from 20 million Americans.\nAnd by the skin of our teeth, we were able to save health insurance for\n20 million Americans. And maybe if we raise enough of a fuss about this\nmassive transfer of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the\nvery, very wealthy, we can stop this egregious policy as well.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.\n  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, let's talk about Trump's betrayal of\nmiddle-class America. In 2017, many of us warned that Trump's tax\ngiveaway was a disaster for working families. It was a giveaway to\nbillionaires. It was a giveaway to powerful corporations. It stole from\nAmerica's Treasury, increasing the debt of this country to gild the\nrichest Americans. They wanted platinum treatment. They wanted more\nmoney than anybody else has ever imagined, and they got it from Trump\nby draining the American Treasury.\n  Well, that failed America's working families. There is nothing about\ngiving several hundred thousand dollars to the richest Americans--that\nis each one of them--that helped a single working American.\n  These policies are coming to an end in 2025. But now, Trump 2 is\ncoming along, and he says: I campaigned on working Americans, but I\nwant to raid the programs for them and raid the Treasury to enrich them\nagain. I didn't give them enough the first time around. The rich are\nnot rich enough. I campaigned for working families, but I am going to\nbetray them with tax cuts, tax giveaways, a tax raid on programs and\nthe Treasury for the richest Americans. That is the Trump betrayal that\nwe are facing right now.\n  CBO says extending the Trump tax cuts would blow a $4.6 trillion hole\nin the Federal budget over the next 10 years. As my colleague just\npointed out, Republicans are saying they might decrease the size of\nthat hole by raiding healthcare for Americans. What an evil and twisted\nplot that is, what an assault on working families across our Nation.\n  That $4.6 trillion--no, I did not say ``m'' for million or ``b'' for\nbillion; we are talking trillion, $4.6 trillion--should go to basic\nservices for all Americans or reduce our deficit instead of going into\nthe pockets of the very few.\n  So whom are you for? Are you for the very richest 1 percent and 0.1\npercent of Americans who have so much money they don't know what to do\nwith it or are you for working families? Because this Trump budget is\nthe betrayal of working families.\n  If you are for working families, you invest in healthcare, you don't\nraid it; you invest in housing, you don't raid housing programs; you\ninvest in education, you don't raid education programs.\n  Those are the foundations. Those are the good-paying jobs. Those are\nthe four foundations for families to thrive.\n  If you work an hourly job and make less than $34,000 a year--which is\nthe case for 50 million American taxpayers--you would get back $130 a\nyear--$2.50, roughly, two and a half dollars. All right. Right now,\nthat is less than a cup of coffee. Enjoy that every week because that\nis what Trump cares about for those families who are working at the\nbottom of the ladder trying to move up.\n  Instead of helping move up, he wants to take the programs away from\nthem and give them to these folks who are going to get a $280,000 per-\nperson tax break at the very top.\n  Look how skewed this is. Working families on the left get nothing.\nThe richest on the right get everything. That is what we are looking\nat. That little tiny $130--just a little change in the cost of drugs or\nyour rent, your groceries wipes that out. Two thousand times the help\nfor the richest compared to those who are struggling.\n  That is twisted. That is warped. That is the Trump betrayal of\nworking families.\n  Let's stand for working families. Let's stand for healthcare and\nhousing and education, the foundation for every family to move up the\nladder because that is what it means to care about every American\nfamily, whether they are in the party of the elite rich like the Trump\nbetrayal presents.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.\n  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I join my colleagues on the same topic to\ntalk about the forthcoming debate that we will have about tax policies\nin this Chamber. Since coming to Congress--really before, when I was a\nmayor and Governor--I advocated for smart, simple pro-growth and pro-\nfamily tax reform. Taxes should be fair. They should be consistent.\nThey should be predictable. And they should generate the revenue that\nAmerica needs to fund Social Security, Medicare, education, roads,\nnational security, and the other critical investments that matter to\nour constituents.\n  I repeat what some of my colleagues said. In 2017, during the first\nTrump administration, after the failed effort to take health insurance\naway from more than 20 million people and deprive all Americans of\nbeing protected from discrimination by insurance companies if they had\npreexisting conditions--and thank goodness that reconciliation effort\nfailed when three Republicans joined Democrats to block that effort--\nthe Trump administration colleagues turned to the idea of tax reform.\n  Democrats were very willing to work on deficit-neutral, pro-growth\ntax reform. But instead, Republicans chose: We don't want to have a\ncommittee process. We don't want to include Democrats. We want to write\na bill, and we will write a bill that will pass partisan tax cuts that\nwill dramatically expand the deficit.\n  At this time--and I know my colleagues remember this--economists were\nsaying that America's corporate tax rate of 35 percent was high\ncompared to global averages. So there was some suggestion that what we\nshould do is lower the corporate tax rate to put it more in tune with\nwhat other nations were charging. There is a little bit of an apples to\noranges difficulty in doing that because other nations use a VAT tax\nthat we don't use.\n  Most economists said if we wanted to make our corporate tax rate\nequivalent to other nations, we should try to lower the corporate tax\nrate from 35 percent to, like, 28 percent. And many of my businesses in\nVirginia were coming to me saying: We have to be more competitive. We\nhave to have a corporate tax rate that matches up more with global\nnorms. Cut the global tax rate to 28 percent.\n\n  Instead, even though companies were only asking for that reduction,\nour Republican colleagues plummeted and slashed the corporate tax rate\nnot to 28 percent, not to 25 percent but to 21 percent. And they didn't\neven pay for it--didn't even pay for it. As Senator Murphy said, just\nracked up higher deficits.\n  There were a few individual tax cuts in this bill. If you look at the\nbill from 2017, it was mostly corporate tax cuts. There were a few, in\nthat pie chart, individual tax cuts. But they were heavily tilted\ntoward the wealthy, as my colleagues have described. Analysis at the\ntime showed households in the top 1 percent would get an average tax\ncut of $60,000, while households in the bottom 60 percent averaged only\n$500 each.\n  The bill also left out our Nation's poorest children. Nearly 20\nmillion children were left out of the full value of the child tax\ncredit because it was not made refundable. Democrats demonstrated in\nthe American Rescue Plan that when you expand the Child Tax Credit and\nallow it to be refundable, you could lead to a revolutionary drop in\nchild poverty when it was in effect. But Republicans took a different\nroute.\n  And on top of these inequities, that the bill was too heavily\nweighted toward corporations, too light toward individuals, and with\nindividuals, too heavily weighted toward the wealthy\n\n[[Page S169]]\n\nrather than lower and middle-income people, the Republican bill in 2017\ndid another thing that was entirely unjustified. The bill made the\ncorporate tax cuts permanent and the individual tax cuts temporary. So\nbig, permanent corporate tax cuts; tiny, temporary, heavily skewed\nindividual tax cuts.\n  During the debate, I offered a simple amendment that virtually all my\nDemocratic colleagues voted for. And we said: Hey, look, let's go ahead\nand reduce the corporate tax rate, but let's not reduce it to 21\npercent. If we reduce it to 25 percent, which is a big reduction, we\ncan make these individual tax cuts for everyday people permanent, so at\nleast the individual tax cuts to everyday people would be permanent,\nlike the corporate tax cuts. All of my Republican colleagues opposed\nit. The Senate was majority Republican so we were stuck with a bad\nbill.\n  And that brings us to today. Republicans are debating how to ram\nanother $4.6 trillion tax cut through the Senate. I will remind my\ncolleagues that when the Senate Republicans did this in 2017, they were\nreally proud because they thought it would help them in the 2018\nmidterms. I think it was heavily driven by an electoral strategy. What\nthey found is after about 90 days of talking about it, the American\npublic was so mad that these tax cuts went to the wealthy rather than\neveryday people that they dropped it as a campaign issue to talk about\nother things and still lost badly in those midterms.\n  The proposed extensions are going to tilt toward the wealthy, as my\ncolleagues indicated. But get this, the deficit effects that are likely\nto be felt in some of these distributional effects President Trump is\nproposing, why not mitigate those by jacking up tariffs? OK. So we are\ngoing to do tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, but we are also going to\ndo tariffs. And whom will tariffs impact? President-elect Trump often\nsays tariffs won't affect Americans; it will hurt China and Mexico. But\nonce the election was over, he acknowledged that he can't guarantee\nAmerican families won't be affected by costs of tariffs.\n  I am going to guarantee this. If President Trump moves forward with\nbroad-based universal tariffs, and they are not defeated in this body,\nAmerican families will suffer. American families will pay the cost. We\nknow it because we have seen it before. Study after study shows\nAmerican consumers bore the brunt of Trump's first trade war, and this\ntime it will be even more. Projections suggest that the tariffs will\nimpact American families to the tune of either between $2,500 and\n$4,000 per American household in additional costs. So $2,500 compared\nto this tiny, little tax benefit that everyday Americans will\nexperience.\n  Talk about salt in a wound.\n  We are going to do a tax bill for the wealthiest when they don't need\nit, not do much for everyday people who do need it but put on the\nshoulders of those same people tariffs that are going to increase the\ncost of goods. Imagine coming out of COVID and other things and having\nthis kind of burden put on your shoulders.\n  There is a better path. Let me give you an example. Democrats are\ngoing to work with Republicans to do tax reform that will be fair. Just\nlast year, we saw bipartisan negotiations in the House and how those\nnegotiations can lead to more balanced, more smart, better for the\ndeficit, bipartisan priorities.\n  Our colleague Senator Wyden was able to reach a deal with House Chair\nJason Smith on a bipartisan tax package that would have lifted children\nout of poverty--the child tax credit--that would have incentivized\ninvestment into research and development, good for companies who then\ninnovate, and that is good for jobs.\n  And also the third piece of this tax bill that was bipartisan would\nhave expanded our ability to build affordable housing. And it was fully\npaid for.\n  This bill got 357 votes in the House. We can't get that for a\nMother's Day resolution in the House of Representatives. But then it\ndied here in the Senate because Republicans didn't want to take the\nbill up because they wanted to wait to do a bill that would benefit the\nwealthiest.\n  I urge my colleagues: You made a mistake before in 2017 by going down\na path that busted the deficit and made the American voters really mad.\nDon't go down that path again. Work with us to find a tax bill that\nwill appropriately prioritize the needs of everyday American citizens\nand small businesses.\n  I yield the floor.\n  Mr. BOOKER. Senator Kaine, would you yield for a question?\n  Mr. KAINE. I would yield for a question from my colleague from New\nJersey.\n  Mr. BOOKER. That was the stunning thing: Whom are you for? Are you\nworking for Americans, are you for American families, or are you for\nthe wealthiest of the wealthy?\n  I watched this in slow motion, this disaster for our country\neconomically, when I was getting lobbied by corporations in the same\nway that you said. They said: We are not globally competitive. We are\nnot globally competitive.\n  Everybody here, all 100 of us, want American businesses to win. So,\nyes, I think that we should have--my opinion was, yes, let's make our\ntax rate globally competitive and get rid of some of these crazy\ncorporate tax loopholes that people use. So many companies pay zero\ntaxes.\n  So we could have had a bipartisan conversation that could have\nreflected our values, lowered the overall corporate tax rate, and found\na way to get rid of loopholes so corporations don't find a way to\nexempt themselves from taxes when the average police officer is paying\nhigher taxes than some of the biggest corporations.\n  I watched you during that time--this was 8 years ago--and you began\nto say: Let's make sure that this tax plan benefits working Americans\nbecause when you invest in middle-class Americans, in working-class\nAmericans, it is a proven way to grow the economy other than this\nfallacy of trickle-down.\n  And so the stunning thing for me--and this is where I want you to--I\nthink that was one of the most powerful points I heard. It was when\npeople were coming to me and saying 28 percent, 27 percent, 26 percent.\nThe biggest corporations were saying it publicly. I was reading it in\nthe newspaper. The lowest thing I saw the corporations asking for was\n25 percent. What were those conversations like when you were talking to\nour colleagues on the other side? How did they end up at 21 percent and\nthen not even support an amendment to bring it back up to what the\ncorporate leaders were asking for to the benefit of working-class\npeople? How could that amendment not have passed?\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is reminded that the question did\nrefer to the Chair.\n  Mr. BOOKER. Forgive me, especially with who the Chair is. I am\nafraid.\n  So I direct that question to the Chair to the person here.\n  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I will just direct it, and my answer is\ngoing to reveal my naivete because my corporate sector in Virginia--and\nmy companies were like everybody's companies--were saying: Hey, drop\nthat 35 percent rate to 28. I may have had one that said to 25, but\nthey were basically saying: If you do it at 28, we are going to be\nequivalent to other nations.\n  When the bill was put on the table--and, remember, we got it with\nhandwritten interlineations late in the evening when we didn't even\nhave an ability to even decipher what some of the handwritten\ninterlineations were, but we realized they had dropped it to 21\npercent. I almost thought it was a typo. It was one of these\nhandwritten things. I thought it was a typo because the companies were\nonly asking for 28 percent. Then I looked further in this massive bill,\nand I realized that all the individual tax cuts were tiny, temporary,\nand expiring rather than being big and permanent.\n  So I went to my colleagues, and I said: Have I got a great idea for\nyou. You can take all of these individual tax cuts, if you shave off\nsome of the ones to the most wealthy, and you can make them permanent\nand still do what the corporations had wanted us to do by having a\ncorporate tax rate equivalent to other nations.\n  I thought I was being helpful. I had a solution to a math problem\nthat I thought they were going to like. Instead, what they said is, no,\nit has got to be 21 percent and these individuals are going to be\nweighted to the wealthy and they are going to be temporary.\n  Mr. BOOKER. Would the Senator yield for one last question. Then I\nwill\n\n[[Page S170]]\n\nyield to Senator Lujan for his presentation.\n  Mr. KAINE. I would be glad to yield.\n  Mr. BOOKER. Senator, I came to the floor--or to the Chair, I came to\nthe floor to listen to the good-faith arguments of colleagues about the\nTrump tax cut. I heard them say they would pay for themselves. This was\na mantra I heard over and over again: It will pay for itself. It will\npay for itself.\n  But independent folks, like on the Federal Reserve Board and the\nJoint Committee on Taxation, found that their corporate tax cuts did\nnot pay for themselves, but they drove our government into a\nmultitrillion-dollar and more deficit. The benefits within this idea of\ntrickle-down economics--said by the same groups I just mentioned--were\nthat 90 percent of workers didn't see a dime. Overwhelmingly, it\nexpanded corporate wealth and the wealth of the top 1 percent\nsignificantly and didn't inure to the benefit of the postal worker, the\ncop, the firefighter, the plumber, the teacher.\n  It is stunning to me that I sat here and listened to folks. But my\nchallenge to you because you have been sort of a pragmatic, moderate\nguy for a long time, and we are seeing this coming around the corner--\nthe estimates are now that their new tax plan that they are talking\nabout could cause a deficit and expand, again, by now over $4 trillion.\n  You have been around here longer than I have. When we start running\nbudget deficits, and we know factually that their last tax plan\nexpanded the deficit into the trillions--and this one is projected, if\nthey do it again, to be to the benefit of the top 1 percent and, again,\nwith very few of the benefits going to working Americans--what will\nthat mean for America's fiscal stability going out 10 years from now or\n15 years from now?\n  What kind of pressures will that create, and what kind of calls do we\nhave from Republicans about how to fix the problem that their tax plan\nhas caused?\n  Mr. KAINE. I hope we can take this up in the Budget Committee. I have\nsome Budget Committee colleagues who are here on the floor. Senator\nWhitehouse has been the lead Democrat on the Budget Committee for some\ntime and is now at the helm of another committee. But Senator Merkley,\nwho spoke passionately a couple of minutes ago, is now the lead\nDemocrat on the Budget Committee. We need to take up the issue of these\ntax cuts as proposed and explore what the long-term consequences will\nbe.\n  The consequence will be to bust the deficit. The consequence will be\nto put dollars in the hands of those who don't need them and take\ndollars out of the hands of those who do when you combine it with the\ntariff effect, but the consequence will also be significant on the\nnational debt.\n  As Senator Murphy said during his comments, the national debt gets\nfinanced, and it gets financed in ways that ends up coming back. And\nwho pays for it? Everyday folks. So you will have a compounding effect\non everyday folks where they will not get tax relief. They may see\ntheir taxes increase. They will see their prices go up with this tariff\nblitz, and then they will end up being saddled with the consequences of\ndebt.\n  We should take the time to do this right. We should take the time to\ndo--again, I use the example of what the Finance Committee did last\nyear on the R&D tax credit, the child tax credit, and the low-income\nhousing tax credit. It is not that that bill was perfect, and it is not\nthat it included everything that you might want to include, but it is\nan example of you don't have to jam this through with one party holding\nthe pen and excluding the other party. You can do a tax bill that can\nget 357 votes in the House of Representatives on something that will be\npaid for, not increase the deficit, that will help businesses innovate,\nhelp children get a good start in life, and help people afford\naffordable housing. If you do it the right way, we will come up with a\ngood plan, and I hope that we will.\n  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Will the Senator yield for one more question?\n  Mr. KAINE. I will yield for another question.\n  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Through the Chair, the Senator mentioned the Budget\nCommittee. In the hearings that we have had in the Budget Committee,\nduring which we have discussed tax cuts and their effect on revenues\nand their ability to pay for themselves, how many times have our\nRepublican colleagues been able to produce a witness who, under oath,\nwould say that these tax cuts would actually pay for themselves?\n  Mr. KAINE. Precisely zero, even though that phrase that ``they will\npay for themselves'' or that ``they have paid for themselves'' was used\nall the time, but no one would, under oath, say that that actually\nhappened.\n  It reminds me of a great political maxim. I think it was Eugene\nMcCarthy, a former Senator, who once said the issues candidate is the\none who says the word ``issues'' the most times.\n  Just saying these cuts will pay for themselves is not the same as its\nbeing true. It wasn't true in the 2017 tax cuts, and we could never\nfind any credible witness who would come and testify to that effect.\n  With that, I have other colleagues on the floor who are ready and\nraring to go, and I yield to them.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). The Senator from New Mexico.\n  Mr. LUJAN. Madam President, I especially want to start by giving\nthanks to our colleague from Hawaii for asking us to come together and\nhave a conversation with the American people.\n  I am a proud Senator from the State of New Mexico--from a small,\nrural community in the northern part of the State--and I wanted to come\ndown to the floor to continue this conversation as we have heard from\ncolleagues already talk about what this is and what this isn't. It\nseems to me, when my Republican colleagues last did this, what I heard\nin townhall after townhall across New Mexico was that, from Democrats,\nRepublicans, Independents, voters, constituents, they just wanted to\nhear the truth. They wanted to hear what this is and what this is not.\n  So I am going to start off by holding up this report that says that\nalmost 60 percent of the benefit of extending the Republican tax\npolicies will go to the top 0.1 percent of the wealthiest in America--\n0.1 percent of the wealthiest in America--and I am not talking about\nthe other 99.9 percent. Now let's define how much money people who are\nin the top 0.1 percent in America are making. They are doing very well.\nThey are making $2.8 million per year. It is a lot of money, and they\nare successful, but it is under the guise of giving middle-class\nfamilies, hard-working families all across America a tax cut when the\nbenefit goes to the top 0.1 percent. If you are making 2.8 million\nbucks a year, yes, this is for you.\n  The American people just want to hear the truth. This is not for\nthose hard-working, middle-class families back home--my brothers and\nsisters, police men and women who fight to keep us safe, the EMS who\nrespond when we need them the most, nurses, teachers, electricians,\nironworkers, pipefitters. You know, they are all the folks across\nAmerica who are doing everything they can to put some food on the\ntable, to keep a roof over their heads, to provide for their kids, and\nmaybe save for retirement if they have a little extra.\n  They are playing by the rules. This golden rule promised that, if you\nfight hard and you play by the rules, you will do better than the\nprevious generation, and you are going to help your kids and everyone\nwho follows you. So while you are playing by the rules all across the\ncountry--and I am talking to everyone not making 2.8 million bucks a\nyear--my Senate Republican colleagues are getting ready to rig the\nsystem with a tax cut that is going to give more money to the people in\nthe top 0.1 percent--remember, the people making $2.8 million a year or\nmore. Well, maybe that will let some of those folks buy another jet\nplane or another yacht if they are doing well as $2.8 million is a lot\nof money.\n  Now, one of the concerns across the country is, just as it happened\nbefore, my Senate Republican colleagues are going to try to do this\nbehind closed doors, all the while making false promises that this will\nbe for you, working-class families, all across America, but at the end\nof the night, all they are going to do is stick you with the bill.\n  They are going to pay for this, as we have heard time and time again,\nby eliminating programs that support our\n\n[[Page S171]]\n\nveterans, that feed young children or babies, that take care of our\ngrandparents or elders, or by taking away your children's ability to\nsee the same doctors they have been seeing since they were born.\nStudies show that just extending this Republican tax scam would blow a\n$4 trillion hole. Let that sink in. Facts. We are talking about the\nrealities of what this will and will not do.\n  The incoming administration is going to try and pass this off as--you\nheard it here--a middle-class tax cut. That is how they are going to\nsell this to the American people, but it is not. It is a handout to the\nwealthiest folks who are making more than $2.8 million a year. The\neconomic analysis makes it clear that this tax scam will drive up the\ndebt and leave working families behind. We all know the way to grow the\neconomy is to invest in the working class, to lower taxes for working\nfamilies, and to bring industry and innovation back to our communities\nacross the country. The success of our teachers, our nurses, our\npipefitters, our firefighters, our police officers, and everyone in\nbetween will be the success of building up the economy across America.\n  Now, look, you have heard this from my Democratic colleagues: I and\nwe are ready to work with my Republican colleagues to find better\nsolutions for growing our economy and lowering taxes to prioritize them\nto target the middle class, to help them, but this scam is horrible. It\nis why I wanted to come to the floor today to have a conversation with\nmy colleagues and to share the facts about what is happening here with\nthe American people and let my colleagues know across the aisle: Let's\nwork together. Let's truly deliver on a promise to help hard-working,\nmiddle-class families all across the country, including in the State of\nNew Mexico.\n  I want to thank again Senator Schatz.\n  I yield to my colleague from Vermont as well, with whom I had the\nhonor of serving in the House and being part of this debate when it\nhappened.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.\n  Mr. WELCH. Madam President, the situation for working families in\nVermont is really, really hard. They show up and work. They get a\npaycheck. And, at the end of the month, when they try to pay their\nbills, there is not enough there.\n  The situation for families is enormously insecure when it comes to\nhousing. We find Vermonters who are working at ski areas can't live\nwithin an hour of the ski lift that they are attending. We find that\nfolks in factories who want to live in the community they grew up in\ncan't afford a house. They are competing, oftentimes, with cash buyers,\nusually from out of State, and it is folks who are in the economy who\nhave the assets and have ridden the rising stock market--and good for\nthem.\n  But we need a tax system that is good for working families. People\nwant to work. They want to pay their bills. They don't want to have the\nconstant anxiety of whether they are going to miss a mortgage payment\nor they are going to miss a rent payment.\n  To have a discussion about a tax policy that essentially funnels\nmoney to folks who have done extremely well raises a fairness question,\nwhich my colleagues have talked to, but it also raises a very practical\nquestion about how do you grow an economy. You can only grow an economy\nif folks who are working and committed to the communities they are in\ncan pay their bills, can earn what they need in order to pay the\ngrocery bill and to pay rent and healthcare. That is why the starting\npoint of tax reform should be addressing family needs that, by the way,\nare employer needs.\n  The childcare tax credit really worked. It meant that families were\nable to afford things, and we saw the results with a 50-percent\nreduction in childhood poverty. What we also see is that when we can\nput money into education so families can be secure about a safe place\nand a good place for their kids to go to school, that will work.\n  So our starting point should be: How does this help the paycheck for\nthe working family? And that is pretty simple: the earned-income tax\ncredit, the child tax credit, low-income housing credits to build the\nhousing that we need. That is where we have to start.\n  Funneling money to folks who are doing really well and who have a\nmassive amount of discretionary income and where, for corporations, the\ncapital that they need to invest is there--there is not a capital\nshortage. We need to focus on families, not on the well-to-do and the\ncorporations that got a reduction in taxes that was far more than they\neven requested.\n  The second point I want to make is about the process that is being\nused to pass the tax bill or to consider it. It is the reconciliation\nprocess. By definition, what that means is it will be a Republican-only\nbill. There will be no discussion among Democrats, where we have some\npoint of views that, by the way, are really beneficial to folks in my\nState, whether they voted for Harris or they voted for Trump. A lot of\nworking families need that childcare tax credit.\n  The reconciliation process means that the political tradeoffs have to\nall be in the direction of the most extreme wing of the House\nRepublican Party. So that process is going to handcuff us right at the\nbeginning.\n  The third point that many of my colleagues have made is that tax cuts\ndo not pay for themselves. You know, dream on. Folks like to say that.\nIt is as though it is magical. They don't pay for themselves. This tax\ncut will add about $4 trillion to the deficit.\n  What is next? Then we say: Hey, we have got to cut spending. What\nspending do we have to cut? Healthcare, the ACA premium support.\n  To the Senator from Massachusetts that would mean--and for a family\nin Vermont--a lot of them will pay 300, 400, 500 bucks more each month.\nThat is on top of the high grocery bill.\n  So the pressure, then, if we have this explosion in the deficit, is\nto cut spending, and it usually means that veterans are on the block.\nIt means that the low-income folks are on the block. It means that\nhealthcare for working families is on the block.\n  So let's have a tax system that is fair and also promotes growth and\ninvests in the folks who want to work to make this economy strong, who\nwant to build strong communities and take care of their families.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.\n  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, we are in a climate emergency. Over just\nthe past few months, powerful hurricanes and severe wildfires have\ncaused nearly one-half of a trillion dollars in estimated damage.\n  The Los Angeles fires are estimated to be the costliest blaze in the\nhistory of our country. Insurance is becoming unaffordable. People have\nlost their lives. People have lost their livelihoods.\n  Rather than address our climate catastrophe, Republicans' highest\npriority is passing a new $5 trillion tax scam to subsidize the\nultrawealthy at the expense of working families.\n  Now, in Massachusetts, per capita, we are the wealthiest State in\nAmerica. We are very proud of that. We believe in capitalism. But I\nhaven't had one millionaire come up to me and say: I need a tax break--\nbecause they know they don't.\n  To pay for their tax scam, Republicans propose slashing Medicaid and\nthe Affordable Care Act, ripping away food security and other supports\nthat parents rely on to feed their children and keep a roof over their\nhead, and ending support for clean energy, which would only add more\nfuel to the fires raging across our country. Los Angeles is just the\nmost recent example.\n  House Republicans have said they want to pay for their tax cuts for\nthe ultrarich with $300 billion in ``the Green New Deal Provisions in\nthe 2021 Infrastructure Bill.''\n  I don't know if that means cutting programs to get lead out of our\ndrinking water or stopping programs to help struggling school districts\nbuy new clean energy buses to cut costs and keep kids healthy. Maybe\nthey have a problem with programs that let people walk and bike and\nlive safely in communities across the country.\n  But we are watching hundreds of billions of dollars in climate-fueled\ntragedy in the past few months alone. The Green New Deal is a systemic\nresponse to this crisis.\n  I will give you a couple of numbers. Hurricane Milton, Hurricane\nHelene--remember them last fall--two storms, 2 weeks? It was $300\nbillion worth of damage--$300 billion.\n\n[[Page S172]]\n\n  They are saying: Let's cut the $300 billion for clean energy\nprograms.\n  Oh, sure, let's have the storms cost $600 billion worth of damage, $1\ntrillion worth of damage each time they come to shore. Sure. Why put\nprevention in place? Why have wind and solar ever be deployed?\n  That is what they are coming for. It is outrageous.\n  Donald Trump and Republicans would rather trade programs to help\ncommunities survive the climate crisis for tax cuts that help their\nultrarich donors survive tax season.\n  This week, in a response, I will be introducing legislation to make\npolluters pay by increasing taxes on private jet fuel to $2 a gallon.\nDo you know what these billionaires pay for their private jets today?\nTwenty cents. That is the tax on the jet fuel they put in their luxury\njets to travel around America and the world. So we are just going to\nbump it up to $2 a gallon.\n  That will ultimately raise $1.8 billion. I think they can afford it,\ngiven what we are seeing happening in L.A. or Florida or North Carolina\nor State after State in the last 6 months.\n  The tax-dodging ultrawealthy need to stop fanning the flames and\nstart supporting first-class solutions.\n  To tackle the climate crisis and to have a fair Tax Code, we need to\nensure that those doing more than their fair share to fuel the problem\nare paying the bare minimum and are held accountable for contributing\nto the solution.\n  So if Donald Trump and his Cabinet of fat-cat billionaires and the\nthree richest people in the world want to fly private jets to Monday's\ninauguration to pay tribute to Donald Trump, the very least they can do\nis to pay for the damage they are doing to our environment.\n  Per passenger, private jets pollute up to 14 times more than\ncommercial flights, and they pollute 50 times more than trains,\nproducing as much emissions as 5 million cars every single year. Do you\nhear that? Private jets emit as much pollution as 5 million cars a\nyear.\n  Just a few hours of flying private offset the benefits of an entire\nyear of driving an electric car. That is not fair.\n  In just 1 year, Elon Musk's two private jets produced nearly 5,500\ntons of carbon emissions. That is more than 300 years' worth of\nemissions for the average American.\n  Everyday Americans should not have to subsidize the lavish lifestyle\nof the ultrarich. The world's wealthiest 1 percent burn through their\nentire carbon budget for the year in the first 10 days of January--10\ndays. So let's not let the 1 percent blow a $5 trillion hole in our\nFederal budget as well.\n  Republicans just spent the past 2 years complaining about the\nInflation Reduction Act. Yet Republicans are preparing to spend\ntrillions on tax breaks.\n  They want to feed billionaires' greed instead of the families who\nwill go hungry when they cut SNAP. They want to grow billionaire excess\nwhile they cut people's healthcare, including the two-thirds of nursing\nhome patients and 40 million children on Medicaid, and pursue work\nrequirements that do little.\n  Let me just say this. Ronald Reagan, 1981? He set the playbook. Who\nfollowed it? Newt Gingrich, 1995. Who followed him? George W. Bush,\n2021. Who followed him? Donald Trump, 2017. They each had the same plan\nbecause the Republicans have a remarkable ability to harness voluminous\namounts of information to defend knowingly erroneous promises, and the\ncentral erroneous promise is that it is possible to dramatically\nincrease defense spending, which they want to do and which those others\nguys did; cut taxes for the richest people in our country--that is what\nall these other guys did--and then to pretend with crocodile tears that\nthey want to balance the budget because all that is left are the\nprograms for regular families, for poor families.\n  We call it Medicaid. Do you want to hear another way of describing\nMedicaid? Two-thirds of all people in nursing homes are on Medicaid.\nTwo-thirds of all people who are in nursing homes are being paid by\nMedicaid.\n  Do you want to know another number about them? Fifty percent of them\nhave Alzheimer's.\n  How can families keep them in a nursing home? Medicaid.\n  Do you know another name we have for them? They are called Grandma\nand Grandpa. Grandma and Grandpa are in nursing homes with Alzheimer's\nbecause of Medicaid.\n  They want to cut that? Good. Come for it. We are ready for this\ndiscussion.\n  The poorest children in our country, 50 percent of all children in\nour country--50 percent--are on SNAP, on food stamps, at some point in\ntheir life. That is the poorest children in our country. That is who\nthey are.\n  That is Medicaid. That is another way of talking about Medicaid--the\npoorest children, the most vulnerable seniors. That is the piggy bank\nthey are going to use for tax breaks for billionaires. And they are\nthen going to turn and say: We are going to the Affordable Care Act.\n  Do you know another way of talking about that? That is how people get\nthe funding for opioid treatment and for mental health treatment. That\nis the Affordable Care Act. That is millions of people.\n  Yes, just slash it. Sure. Who needs to help families with mental\nhealth issues? Who needs to help families who have opioid addiction?\nWhy do that?\n  Then they say: We are going to go to wind and solar, and we are going\nto cut that too. And we are going to keep the tax breaks for the oil\nand gas industry.\n  Kick them in the heart; you are going to break your toe. That is what\nthis plan is all about. It is what the plan has always been about since\n1981.\n  So we just can't let the ultrawealthy play while leaving hard-working\nAmericans to pay with their healthcare, their financial security, and\nbearing the brunt of the climate atrocities.\n  We need economic justice. We need climate justice. We need wealthy\npolluters to pay, especially jet-setting billionaires who are polluting\nright now. And we need a system that works for the American people, not\nfor the billionaire excess that the Republican Party is going to bring\nout to the Senate floor.\n  I yield to my friend from Rhode Island, a great leader, Senator\nWhitehouse.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.\n  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I would make the point to my friend\nfrom Massachusetts that when Democrats used reconciliation, we used the\nreconciliation process to do the Inflation Reduction Act and help\neveryone. The Inflation Reduction Act meant green jobs to red States,\nand it meant less pollution for everyone. The Republicans are teeing up\nto use reconciliation to help big CEOs, billionaires, and big\ncorporations that are already doing amazingly well.\n  If you feel you are being left behind by those folks, it is because\nyou are. Look at what CEO pay has done, rocketing skyward, compared to\nthe pay of the top 1 percent--other folks in the C-suite who may not be\nthe CEO--compared to typical worker wages down here. Most Americans are\nright here, and most of the benefit of this tax reform will go to these\nfolks.\n  CEOs are taking a larger and larger share for themselves of the\nresources of American corporations, leaving less and less to pay their\nworkers, and that is the difference: rocketing upward and more or less\nflat. They want to make this worse through their reconciliation.\n  If you want to add another backdrop to what is going on here, this is\nthe share of America's revenue that is contributed by corporations. A\nlot of people in this body seem to want to go back to the good old days\nof the 1950s when things were whatever they were then. Well, back in\nthe 1950s, more than 30 percent of America's revenue came from our\ncorporate community. Corporations were making a real and significant\ncontribution to America's revenues and enjoying the significant growth\nthat being an American corporation provides you. But politically they\nhacked and they hacked and they hacked away at their responsibilities,\nand now they are paying 6 percent of America's revenues. As wealthy as\nAmerican corporations are, they add 6 percent now of America's\nrevenues. And this, too, will be made worse by this Republican program.\n  Half the benefits go to the top 5 percent. If you are making over a\nmillion bucks, it is a $78,000 tax cut; if you are making 50 grand, 273\nbucks. Thanks a bunch. And the hit is going to come to regular\nAmericans through Medicare, through Medicaid, and through support for\ntheir healthcare.\n\n[[Page S173]]\n\n  They will even lower taxes for companies moving jobs and profits\noffshore. How about that for ``Make America Great Again.''\n  I tell you, when you actually take a look under the hood, what you\nsee every time is that the benefits of these Republican tax cuts go to\nthe biggest corporations, to the billionaires, and to corporate CEOs,\nand within those biggest corporations, the worst ones for moving jobs\nand profits offshore. It is as reliable as the sunrise, and it is as\nwrong as it can be.\n  I yield to my friend Senator Rosen.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.\n  Ms. ROSEN. Madam President, I thank Senator Whitehouse.\n  As it is my first time addressing you from the Senate floor since I\nbegan my second term, I would like to start by saying how grateful I am\nthat Nevadans have put their trust in me to serve another 6 years in\nthe U.S. Senate. People in my State know that above all else, I am a\nNevadan first before any political party or ideology, and my track\nrecord is clear. I will always support policies that work for everyone.\n  As Members of Congress, we have the opportunity to make a real and\nmeaningful difference in people's lives, and that starts by working to\nmake the American dream more affordable for hard-working people.\n  Heading into the new administration, I am deeply concerned about\nPresident Trump's plan to cut taxes for the ultrawealthy and\nbillionaires on the backs of workers, senior citizens, and middle-class\nfamilies. When the Trump tax cuts were first passed in 2017, they\noverwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest individuals and the largest\ncorporations, while increasing our national debt and leaving the\nmiddle-class and working families--well, they just left them with much\nless to show for it.\n  Senate Democrats--we will fight. We will fight to stop this from\nhappening again. As we negotiate the upcoming comprehensive tax reform\npackage, we must focus on making sure it provides meaningful tax relief\nfor hard-working families--for you, for all of us. While the Trump\nadministration and Senate Republicans look out for billionaires and\ncorporations, Senate Democrats are working for you.\n  For one, we should be working to restart or expand several key tax\ncredits that help support American families, like expanding the child\ntax credit, which will increase the amount of hard-earned money\nfamilies get to keep in their pockets. We also need to use this\nopportunity to address the high cost of housing, which is impacting\nfamilies in Nevada and across the country. We must expand the low-\nincome housing tax credit so that we can help build more housing and\nincrease supply, and that ultimately lowers costs for you, for\neveryone.\n\n  As someone who grew up in a working-class family, I know what it is\nlike to work multiple jobs and rely on tips to make ends meet. That is\nwhy we need to make sure we put money back in the pockets of hard-\nworking Nevadans, which is why any package--any package--should include\nthe bipartisan plan to eliminate income tax on tips for service and\nhospitality workers. By ending income tax on tips and adding guardrails\nto prevent the ultrawealthy and CEOs from exploiting loopholes, we can\nmake sure that Nevadans keep more of their hard-earned money.\n  We also need to provide a broad-based tax cut for working families\nand the middle class and make sure that families making less than\n$400,000 a year don't see a tax hike.\n  Instead of lowering already low tax rates for corporations, we should\nbe providing much needed tax relief for our businesses, like restoring\nresearch and development expensing.\n  Our country's strength has always come from the middle class--our\nteachers, our first responders, our small business owners, our factory\nworkers--families who get up every morning, every day, and they send\ntheir kids off to school and then go out and work hard to make our\nNation run. They deserve--they deserve--tax policies that work for\nthem, not tax cuts that leave them behind while the wealthiest of us,\nthe wealthiest of billionaires, the big corporations, reap the tax\nrewards.\n  So let's be clear, though. If President-elect Trump and Senate\nRepublicans don't work with Democrats, Republican tax proposals--well,\nthey won't help you. They won't help your family. Republican tax\npolicies are only going to help billionaires.\n  We need to build an economy that works for everyone, for you, not\njust those at the top. So to all the families feeling the stress, know\nyou are not alone. It is time for us to put your priorities first, to\nlower costs, and to expand opportunity. I see you--all of you--and I am\nready and willing to fight for you and for all those you care about.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.\n  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Madam President, I am joining my colleagues on the\nSenate floor today for the same reasons--and I so appreciate my friend\nand colleague from the great State of Nevada because she is absolutely\nright, and my colleagues as well--drawing attention to what really is\nhappening here in Washington that has an impact on our individuals and\nfamilies back home.\n  Quite often, I see so many decisions being made here in this bubble\nin Washington without any true regard or understanding of the impact on\nMain Street, where we all live and we come from. And what we are\ntalking about today is what incoming President Donald Trump had passed\npreviously when he was President, which is this massive tax giveaway to\nbillionaires.\n  What the American people don't know, which we know and we are talking\nabout--and that is why we are here--is that tax cut for billionaires is\nabout to expire, and many of my colleagues, Republican colleagues, want\nto extend the entire bill at the expense of middle-class families\nacross the country.\n  Now, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that\nreauthorizing the Trump tax bill as-is would add $4.6 trillion to our\nnational debt. That would raise interest rates and make it more\nexpensive for families to buy a home, to send their kids to college, or\nto start a business.\n  Based on how much time my colleagues across the aisle have spent the\nlast 4 years--as I have sat in the Presiding Officer's seat listening\nto my colleagues, I have heard them say that we should be talking about\nthe deficit and doing something about it. I would hope that they would\nwant to avoid adding trillions of dollars to it, regardless of who is\nin the White House, even now. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be\nthe case.\n  Instead, my colleagues now--my Republican colleagues--have come up\nwith two options for selling this legislation to the American people--\nagain, this legislation that will mainly benefit the very wealthy in\nthis country, the billionaires--legislation that is going to add $4\ntrillion to the deficit. This is how they plan to do it. One option is\nRepublican leadership in the Senate has suggested that because they\nwant to extend policy that currently exists, we should just ignore the\ncost of extending it; there shouldn't be a pay-for; we don't have to\nworry about it; that all of a sudden, that $4 trillion increase in\ndeficit just doesn't exist.\n  Now, I know we all wish we could forget about an actual debt\nsometimes, but that is not what the American people sent us here to do,\nand that is not what American people do. I can tell you that every\nfamily across this country has to live within their means and manage\ntheir budget--my family, my grandparents, my parents, everybody, every\nindividual. So we should be working together to address this issue.\n  The other option that I have heard from some of my colleagues across\nthe aisle to reauthorize this Trump tax bill is they have suggested a\npay-for which is to gut Medicaid in order to pay for tax breaks, again,\nfor the wealthiest people. I can't stress this enough: again, tax\nbreaks for the very, very wealthy--the top 1 percent--on the backs of\nworking families, on the backs of individuals, our middle class. To me,\nthat is just outrageous. Padding the pockets of the top 1 percent at\nthe expense of hard-working families is unacceptable, and nobody should\nstand for that.\n  I urge my Republican colleagues and leadership in this body to work\nin a bipartisan manner on this and find solutions that will benefit all\nAmericans, not just CEOs and their board members. There is a way we can\ncome together to make sure our middle class benefits, that our small\nbusinesses and\n\n[[Page S174]]\n\ncompanies--by the way, that are essential for that middle class and our\nlabor force, because you need both--work together to benefit, and\nreally work and identify a pay-for and how we are not going to add to\nthe deficit.\n  I can't stress this enough: We need to come together and build on\nspending reductions from the bipartisan Fiscal Responsibility Act\ninstead of targeting Americans' healthcare. And let's ensure that the\nwealthiest pay their fair share to protect the middle class and their\nchildren from the exorbitant trillion-dollar bill the Republicans are\ncurrently going to send to them.\n  The two options just do not work, but there is an option that works,\nand I will stress it one more time. We need to work together in a\nbipartisan way. This should not be a partisan issue. This should not be\ndone just through reconciliation without any input from the Democrats\nbecause, at the end of the day, our families are no different, our\ncommunities are no different.\n  My firefighters in Nevada are no different than firefighters in your\nState. My hard-working laborers in my State, whether they come from the\nservice industry and it is somebody who is washing dishes in a\nrestaurant in Nevada, are no different than that person washing dishes\nin some of my colleagues' States.\n  Everybody benefits if we come together in a bipartisan way, and that\nis how this should work. And I am hopeful my colleagues are willing to\ndo so.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.\n\n                          Cabinet Nominations\n\n  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, yesterday I came to the floor of the\nU.S. Senate to talk about the importance of promptly confirming\nPresident Trump's Cabinet. The American people having voted for\nPresident Trump, having said that they are unhappy with the direction\nthe country is going in is entitled to his team to help him actually do\nwhat he said he would do during the campaign.\n  Well, today I would like to reiterate that message; but, in\nparticular, I want to highlight some of the hypocrisy of our Democratic\ncolleagues on this important matter as it pertains to our country's\ndemocratic processes.\n  We know that our colleagues are frequently warning that ways of the\nRepublicans are allegedly undermining democracy, but this is like the\nlittle boy who cried wolf. If you cry wolf often enough, the people\nbegin to believe that it is not really serious; and, indeed, it\nshouldn't be taken seriously in the case of the allegation that\nRepublicans are somehow trying to undermine democracy.\n  Let me give you an example. Back in 2022, when Republicans passed\nState laws that included commonsense election integrity measures, like\nvoter ID, Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer criticized these initiatives,\nwhich were intended to ensure the integrity of our elections.\n  You would think that would be a no-brainer, that everybody would want\nto embrace measures that would protect the integrity of our elections.\nBut he claimed somehow there was an attempt to suppress people from\nvoting. Well, I remember it wasn't that long ago when Barbara Jordan, a\nDemocrat from Texas, revered justly as an incredible leader for our\nState and country, along with James Baker III cochaired a commission\nthat came out with voter ID as one of the consensus recommendations.\n  But now Democrats claim making sure that people are who they say they\nare and using the same sorts of things that you need in order to get on\nan airplane or to buy tobacco or a six-pack of beer, somehow that\nundermines democracy. It just doesn't make any sense.\n  But here is Senator Schumer on the Senate floor. He said,\n``Republicans across the country are trying to stop the other side from\nvoting. That tears apart, rips apart, the very fabric of our\ndemocracy.'' I can almost see him crying crocodile tears as he says\nthat.\n  Well, I did a rough check a moment ago, and 152 million Americans\nvoted in 2024. If Republicans were trying to suppress the vote, we are\ndoing a lousy job because you are seeing historic numbers of people, a\nlot of whom have not made a practice of voting before, showed up at the\nballot box this time because they hated the direction our country was\ngoing in and they felt like this was our last chance, perhaps, to save\nour country as we know it.\n  Well, the Senator from New York used this argument to advocate for\nchanges to the Senate filibuster rule--the requirement you get 60 votes\nto close off debate--in order to pass what he called Federal voting\nrights legislation. Well, first of all, what it would have done, it\nwould have preempted the States' laws when it came to voting practices\nand created a single uniform standard here at the Federal level, which\nwould have prevented some of these commonsense measures like voter ID\nfrom taking place.\n  Well, President Biden also expressed the same sentiment. He pressed\nfor the filibuster to be changed to advance the so-called voting rights\npackage, saying that the package must be passed ``to defend our\ndemocracy.'' Well, actually, it would have made it easier to cheat.\n  Now, ironically, they used the same argument for democracy to\nundermine the Senate filibuster, which is one of the bedrocks of this\ninstitution. But what I have noticed is that if an issue can be framed\nas a threat to democracy, Democrats throw any other concerns out the\nwindow; hence, the sky is falling.\n  More recently, in 2023, Democrats brought up this same question of\nprotecting democracy as a reason to advance legislation addressing\nartificial intelligence. Well, as it turns out, artificial intelligence\nhas been around for decades. It has recently captured the popular\nimagination because technology has taken us to places we never dreamed\nwe could go.\n  Well, in 2023, the Committee on Rules and Administration held a\nhearing on AI, and the Democratic leader said this:\n\n       If left unchecked--\n\n  Here he goes again. He said:\n\n       If left unchecked, [artificial intelligence]'s use in our\n     elections could erode our democracy from within and from\n     abroad, and the damage, unfortunately, could be irreversible.\n\n  That is a pretty common scare tactic. You scare people enough, well,\nmaybe they are willing to let you do things that they, otherwise,\nwouldn't do upon calmer reflection.\n  He went on to stress the importance of Republicans and Democrats\nworking together to protect and reinforce our democracy. We are for\nthat. But here is what he said:\n\n       I can think of few issues that should both--unite both\n     parties faster than safeguarding our democracy . . . It will\n     take all of us, the Administration, the private sector,\n     Congress working together to protect our democracy, ensure\n     robust transparency and safeguards, and ultimately keep the\n     vision of our founders alive in the 21st century.\n\n  Well, taken at face value, that sounds pretty good until you start\nbeginning to look at the details about what he says we need to do in\norder to accomplish that goal. That is where you see--begin to see the\nhuge disconnect. It is in pursuit of another agenda.\n  Democrats have become the party that cried wolf--or excuse me--threat\nto democracy; and the more they say it, the less meaning it actually\nholds. For what it is worth, I agree that the administration of private\nsector and Congress should work together to protect rather than\nundermine democracy. But we do have some different perspectives or\npoints of view about how we might do it. That is a laudable goal, but\nnot in pursuit of a fairly cynical and partisan policy agenda.\n  There is a very tangible way that Democrats can join with us to do\nthis, this week. They can cooperate with the President that the people\nelected as Commander in Chief of the United States by confirming his\nCabinet. How is that for protecting democracy?\n  The opposite, which is to stonewall the President's Cabinet nominees,\nto burn as much time as possible before we are able to get that done,\nis not preserving and protecting democracy; it is undermining it.\n  Our Democratic colleagues never seem to lose an opportunity to say\nthat whatever the subject, it is a threat to democracy. But here they\nare today participating in a campaign to stonewall President Trump's\nnominees, which I would argue is undermining the democratic process. It\nis denying an elected President of the United States, who won not only\nthe electoral college vote but the popular vote as well--to deny him\nhis team so he can actually get to work on January 20th doing what he\nwas elected to do.\n  Just yesterday, Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader, came to the\n\n[[Page S175]]\n\nfloor to air his grievances on each of the President's nominees for the\nCabinet. He argued that many of the policies they would implement would\nbe disastrous. But the fact of the matter is the American people have\nchosen. They did that on November 5 when they went to the polls and\nthey gave President Trump a substantial majority and even a mandate for\na new direction in the country.\n  They repudiated the failed policies of the Biden administration,\nstarting with what has been happening at the border, which is an\nunmitigated disaster from a public health and public safety point of\nview. And it would, indeed, be a threat to democracy if our Democrat\ncolleagues chose to ignore the will of the voters and deny the\nPresident his Cabinet or delay it for no good reason and prevent these\nnominees from going to work to implement the policies that the American\npeople elected President Trump to enact.\n  Unfortunately, this is sort of reflexive, it is kind of what our\nDemocratic colleagues do. I have been amazed to listen on television\nand hear in-person for the last--however it has been--hour, Democratic\ncolleagues who came to the floor to speak, but they didn't talk about\nthe pending business, the Laken Riley Act.\n  This young woman was killed by an illegal immigrant who should not\nhave been in the country. I asked Pam Bondi, who is the nominee for\nAttorney General, this morning during her confirmation hearing, I said:\nIf President Biden and Harris had secured the border, do you think\nLaken Riley would still be alive? And she said, yes, together with many\nothers who have been victimized by illegal immigrants who come across\nthe border to do Americans harm in one way or another. Not all of them.\nBut when you open the border to 10 or more million people with 2\nmillion of them ``got-aways,'' evading law enforcement, you don't know\nwhat you are going to get.\n  Well, I take that back, you do know what you are going to get. You\nare going to get some people who do not intend to come here for a\nbetter way of life; they come here to rape and pillage and rob and to\ncommit crimes.\n  Well, Republicans are tired of hearing excuse after excuse from our\nDemocrats, some of these hearings are being delayed due to incomplete\nbackground checks, but ask yourself who is responsible for the\nbackground checks? Well, it is Joe Biden's FBI. The FBI owes it to the\nAmerican people to work around the clock, 24/7, to get these background\nchecks done on a timely basis.\n  Otherwise, we are, literally, undermining a democratically elected\nPresident.\n  So I would urge our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to heed\ntheir own words when it comes to confirming President Trump's Cabinet.\n  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to talk a big talk\nabout defending democracy, but I would like to see them put these\ncommitments into practice by ending the undemocratic obstructionist\ntactics that they are using to deny this President his team.\n  I yield the floor.\n  I suggest the absence of a quorum.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.\n  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.\n  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order\nfor the quorum call be rescinded.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  The Senator from Vermont.\n\n                               H-1B Visa\n\n  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, as we go forward in this new session of\nCongress, I would hope very much that there will be a serious focus on\nthe crises facing the working families of our country. We are the\nwealthiest nation on Earth. In fact, we are the wealthiest Nation in\nthe history of the world. Yet, today, we have more income and wealth\ninequality than we have ever had. Sixty percent of our people live\npaycheck to paycheck. The life expectancy of working people is far\nbelow that in other wealthy countries. Eighty-five million Americans\nare uninsured or underinsured. Some 800,000 Americans are homeless.\nTwenty-five percent of seniors are trying to survive on $15,000 a year\nor less. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any\nmajor nation on Earth. Further, we remain, shamefully, the only wealthy\ncountry not to guarantee healthcare to all people as a human right.\n  Meanwhile, while working families struggle to put food on the table\nand pay their bills, the wealthiest people in our country have never,\never had it so good. We are now in the absurd situation, the grossly\nunjust situation, where the 3 wealthiest people on top own more wealth\nthan the bottom half of American society, some 170 million people. The\n3 people on top have more wealth than 170 million on the bottom. That\nis not what America is supposed to be about.\n  In truth, there are a number of reasons why we are living in a nation\ntoday where the wealth of the billionaire class is exploding while the\nworking class of our country struggles to keep their heads above water.\nThere are many causes as to why, despite a huge increase in worker\nproductivity, real weekly wages for the average American worker are\nless today than they were 50 years ago--real weekly wages are less than\nthey were 50 years ago--and why, during that period, there was a $50\ntrillion transfer of wealth from the bottom 90 percent to the top 1\npercent.\n  Now, a lot of the reasons as to why the very rich are becoming richer\nand working-class families are struggling have to do with disastrous\ntrade policies which have resulted in the loss of millions of good-\npaying jobs. The failure of Congress to raise the minimum wage to a\nliving wage is another reason why millions and millions of workers\ntoday are forced to try to survive on starvation wages. Furthermore, we\nare seeing and have seen aggressive and often illegal union-busting\nactivities on the part of major employers. All of those reasons, and\nmore, are issues that we have to deal with.\n  Today, I want to focus on one more reason as to why the working class\nof this country is struggling, and that has to do with the H-1B guest\nworker program.\n  Elon Musk, the wealthiest man in the world, with a net worth of\nnearly $430 billion, and other multibillionaires in the high-tech\nindustry claim that the H-1B Federal guest worker program is vital to\nour economy because of the scarcity of highly skilled engineers and\nother technology workers in the United States. In other words, what\nthey say is that they are trying desperately to find highly skilled\nAmerican workers to do their jobs; just can't find them; just not\nthere.\n  In my view, Musk and the other billionaires who are strongly\nsupporting the H-1B Program are dead wrong. American workers are there;\nthey are just not looking for them.\n  In my view, the main function of the H-1B Program is not to hire the\nbest and the brightest. That is the theory--we have to bring in the\nbest and the brightest to help our companies function and grow wealth\nin America. That is the theory, but in truth, the reality of what the\nH-1B Program is, is to replace good-paying American jobs with hundreds\nof thousands of lower paid guest workers from abroad who are often\ntreated as indentured servants. The cheaper it is to hire guest\nworkers, the more money the multibillionaire owners of large\ncorporations make. In other words, this program is not only grossly\nunfair to American workers; in many ways, it is unfair to foreign\nworkers as well.\n  According to the Economic Policy Institute, between 2022 and 2023,\nthe top 30 companies using the H-1B Program laid off 85,000 American\nworkers while simultaneously bringing in over 34,000 guest workers from\nabroad.\n  In 2019 and 2020, 85 percent of H-1B visas were awarded to entry\nlevel and junior guest workers, who are paid between 20 to 40 percent\nless than American workers in similar occupations.\n  So, No. 1, it is simply not true that the H-1B Program focuses on the\nvery rare and highly skilled workers that American companies cannot\nfind. Eighty-five percent, to repeat, of H-1B visas were awarded to\nentry level and junior guest workers, and they are paid 20 to 40\npercent less than American workers in similar occupations.\n  Let me just give you a few examples as to how unfair the H-1B Program\nis. In Dallas, TX, H-1B software developers are making $44,000 less\nthan American workers doing the exact same job. This is information\nfrom the U.S. Department of Labor.\n\n[[Page S176]]\n\n  In Houston, TX, H-1B accountants--I did not know, to be honest with\nyou, that we had a scarcity in accountants, but be that as it may, H-1B\naccountants are paid nearly $40,000 less than American accountants\ndoing the exact same work.\n  In Santa Barbara, CA, H-1B workers who are hired as computer system\nengineers make just $45,000 a year. Does that sound like the kind of\nsalary that would bring forth some extremely, highly skilled people for\njobs that American workers cannot fill? Madam President, you tell me.\nWhy would a corporation hire an American computer systems engineer at a\nsalary of $110,000 a year when it is $65,000 cheaper to hire an H-1B\nworker for that same exact position?\n  That is basically what this whole debate is about, and that is that\nlarge corporations are paying foreign workers substantially lower\nsalaries than they are paying American workers. Madam President, if you\nwant to know why multibillionaire owners of high-tech companies love\nthe H-1B Program so much, that is the reason why. They are using this\nprogram to substantially undercut the wages of American workers.\n  Moreover, there are estimates that as many as 33 percent of all new\ninformation technology jobs in America are being filled by guest\nworkers. According to the Census Bureau data, there are millions of\nAmericans with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering,\nand math who are not currently employed in those professions. In other\nwords, we tell kids ``Go out and get involved in STEM work. Become a\nscientist. Become an engineer. Become a mathematician,'' whatever, and\nthen we bring in people from abroad to fill the jobs they were educated\nto do.\n  Adding insult to injury, half of the top 30 H-1B employers are\ncompanies whose major function in life is to outsource jobs, known in\nthe industry as body shops. In other words, the same companies that are\ninvolved with supplying American companies with cheap foreign labor at\nhome are the same exact companies that provide even cheaper labor to\ncorporations when they move abroad. They are two sides of the same\ncoin.\n  Madam President, if there is truly a major shortage of skilled tech\nworkers in this country, as Elon Musk and others have argued, why did\nTesla lay off over 7,500 American workers last year, including many\nsoftware developers and engineers at its factory in Austin, TX, while,\nat the same time, applying to hire thousands of H-1B guest workers? If\nthese jobs are only going to the ``best and the brightest,'' why has\nTesla employed H-1B guest workers as associate accountants for as\nlittle as $58,000 a year, associate mechanical engineers for as little\nas $70,000 a year, and associate material planners for as little as\n$80,000 a year?\n  I will admit, I am not a rocket scientist. But, to my mind, those\noccupations don't sound like highly specialized jobs that are primarily\nfor the top 0.1 percent, as Mr. Musk claimed last month.\n  If this program is really supposed to be about importing workers with\nhighly advanced degrees in science and technology, why are H-1B guest\nworkers being employed as fashion models, lawyers, dog trainers,\nmassage therapists, cooks, and English teachers? One might think that,\nin the United States of America, we could find English teachers and not\nneed to bring in people from abroad. Further, does anyone really\nbelieve that in America we do not have enough lawyers and need to bring\nin more attorneys from abroad?\n  At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, we need\nfundamental changes in our economic policies. We need an economy that\nworks for all, not just the few. And one small but very important way\nforward in that direction is to bring about major reforms to the H-1B\nProgram in order to benefit American workers.\n  That is why I have filed an amendment to the Laken Riley bill that we\nare debating this week that will do just that. I hope very much that\nthe leaders agree on allowing that amendment to be debated and voted\nupon. Let me very briefly describe what this amendment does in terms of\nreforming the H-1B Program.\n  First, this amendment would double the major H-1B fee that\ncorporations pay before they can hire guest workers from abroad. This\nprovision would generate over $370 million in revenue each year. And\nwhat would we use that revenue for? Well, it would be used to provide\nnearly 20,000 scholarships each and every year for American students\npursuing advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, math,\nand other fields vital to the competitiveness of our Nation.\n  If the Members of this body truly believe we need H-1B visas in order\nto compensate for a shortage of skilled American professionals, this\namendment will attract tens of thousands of America's best and\nbrightest young people into those fields.\n  Second, this amendment requires corporations to substantially\nincrease wages for the jobs they need before they would be allowed to\nhire H-1B guest workers. Specifically, this amendment would raise the\nprevailing wage for the H-1B Program to at least the median local wage.\nIn other words, if the H-1B Program is truly meant for ``the best and\nthe brightest,'' it should not be used as a tool to undercut the wages\nof highly skilled American workers. And that is what this amendment\nwould prevent.\n  Third, this amendment would prohibit corporations from replacing\nlaid-off American workers with H-1B guest workers from overseas.\nCorporations that are engaged in mass layoffs should not be allowed to\nreplace American workers with guest workers.\n  Finally, this amendment would prevent corporations from treating H-1B\nguest workers, for all intents and purposes, as indentured servants.\n  Under current law, H-1B guest workers are often locked into lower\npaying jobs and can have their visas taken away from them by their\ncorporate bosses if they complain about dangerous, unfair, or illegal\nworking conditions. That is unacceptable, and that has got to change.\nThis amendment would make H-1B visas portable and give guest workers\nthe ability to easily change jobs.\n  Mr. Musk and Mr. Ramaswamy and others have argued that we need a\nhighly skilled and well-educated workforce. I agree. But the answer is\nnot to bring in cheap labor from abroad through the H-1B Program. The\nanswer is to hire qualified American workers first and to make certain\nthat we have an education system that produces the kind of workforce\nthat our country needs for the jobs of the future.\n  The bottom line: It must never be cheaper for a corporation to hire a\nguest worker from overseas than an American worker at home. And that is\nwhat this amendment is all about.\n  Let's be clear. Thirty years ago, the leaders of corporate America,\nthe political establishment in both major parties, and the editorial\nboards of the most influential papers in our country told us not to\nworry about the loss of millions of blue-collar manufacturing jobs that\nwould come as a result of unfettered free-trade agreements like NAFTA\nand permanent normal trade relations with China: Don't worry about the\nloss of those jobs.\n\n  And the reason they told us not to worry is that that job loss would\nbe more than offset by the many good-paying, white-collar information\ntechnology jobs that would be created in the United States.\n  Yes, they said, you lose blue-collar manufacturing jobs, but not to\nworry. We will create zillions of good-paying, white-collar information\ntechnology jobs.\n  I, personally, was a Member of Congress at that time and never\nbelieved that. And I helped lead the effort against NAFTA and PNTR with\nChina. Unfortunately, I and the many others who opposed those trade\nagreements were proven correct. NAFTA and PNTR cost us millions of\ngood-paying manufacturing jobs as large corporations shut down here in\nAmerica and fled to China, Mexico, and other low-wage countries in\nsearch of cheap labor.\n  And what about all of those great high-tech jobs that supposedly were\ngoing to be created? Well, that didn't quite happen either.\n  As a result of the H-1B guest worker program and other guest worker\nprograms, major corporations are now importing hundreds of thousands of\nlower paid guest workers from abroad to fill the white-collar\ntechnology jobs that are currently available.\n  In other words, heads, billionaires wins; tails, American workers\nlose.\n  In my view, we can and must change that reality. A good place to\nstart\n\n[[Page S177]]\n\nwould be to pass this amendment and put American workers first.\nMultibillionaires and Big Tech should not be allowed to hire guest\nworkers to fill entry-level and mid-level information technology jobs.\nThose jobs should be going to American workers who have, among other\nthings, the constitutional right to form unions and collectively\nbargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions.\n  Madam President, I will be asking for a rollcall vote on this\namendment, and I hope very much we can get it to the floor. In my view,\nthe time has come for the American people to know which side their\nSenators stand on this issue.\n  In order to accomplish that goal, I very much appreciated the\nstatement Majority Leader Thune gave on the floor of the Senate last\nNovember about the need for more amendment votes in the Senate. Here is\nwhat the majority leader said on November 14 with respect to the\namendment process:\n\n       [A]ll Members of the Senate--and not just the Members of a\n     particular committee--should have a voice in final\n     legislation through amendments on the floor. Members should\n     assume that amendment votes will be the norm. That will mean\n     taking tough votes at times, but that is part of our jobs.\n\n  I would very much agree with Majority Leader Thune. The truth is\nthat, in the past, whether it has been Republican leaders or Democratic\nleaders, no one debates that the amendment process has been thwarted. I\nhope we will see a new opening here where people will be allowed to\noffer amendments and take up votes. That is what we were elected to do.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schmitt). The Senator from Massachusetts.\n\n                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 103\n\n  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise today to stop the unnecessary and\ndevastating consequences that will result from a ban on TikTok in the\nUnited States. In a few moments, I will ask unanimous consent that the\nSenate pass my legislation with Senator Wyden and Senator Booker, the\nExtend the TikTok Deadline Act, to extend the deadline by which\nByteDance, TikTok's parent company, must sell TikTok or face a ban in\n270 days.\n  This simple, one-sentence bill would avoid significant harm for\nTikTok's creators, who depend upon the app to make a living, to find\ncommunity, to share resources during emergencies such as the Los\nAngeles wildfires, and to discuss everything from the latest pop\nculture trends to controversial political topics.\n  It is the home to 170 million American users--170 million American\nusers. That is over half of the U.S. population and 65 percent of the\nUnited States adult population. It is 50 percent higher than the number\nof Americans who watch the Super Bowl.\n  Those 170 million Americans will be devastated by a TikTok ban. Many\nmake their living on the app and could face difficulties paying for\ngroceries, rent, or medical care. Others may lose contact with a\ncrucial support system, leaving them isolated and scared.\n  If you don't believe me, then I encourage my colleagues to view the\nthousands of videos posted by TikTok users over the past few days\nexplaining why TikTok is so important to them. These testimonials are\npowerful evidence about TikTok's economic, social, and cultural\nimportance, and I implore my colleagues to listen to these users.\n  Now, supporters of the TikTok ban will claim that any delay will\nthreaten national security and allow China to, supposedly, indoctrinate\nthe youth with anti-American views.\n  First, I stand behind no lawmaker here in my commitment to protecting\nchildren online. I am the original author of the only Federal online\nprotection for children today: the Children's Online Privacy Protection\nAct. And I have authored legislation to update and modernize those\nprotections. My Children and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act to\nlift it up to age 16, that was blocked here on the Senate floor just 1\nmonth ago in December. We had it out of committee. We could not get it\npassed.\n  And I repeatedly sent letters to the Federal Trade Commission and the\nDepartment of Justice urging them to investigate and impose penalties\non TikTok for putting their younger users at risk. When TikTok violates\nthe law and puts its users at risk, I will call them out and I will\ndemand accountability. In fact, the Federal Trade Commission has fined\nTikTok for violation of my law, so, obviously, I am concerned.\n  But I am also concerned about what American social media companies do\nto teenagers. They do the same thing. I am very concerned about what\nthey do to young children. According to the Surgeon General, we have a\nmental health crisis in our country, pointing the finger at social\nmedia--not one company, but all the companies that are targeting\nteenagers and children in our country.\n  As for the national security arguments, I recognize that ByteDance's\nownership of TikTok poses security risks. I do not want China to have\nsignificant influence over an important communications channel in the\nUnited States and access to Americans' data, but Congress must\nappropriately balance those risks with the serious hardship imposed on\nTikTok's 170 million American users and the unintended consequences of\na nationwide TikTok ban.\n  With the impending TikTok ban, Congress has gotten that balance\nwrong, and most importantly, the proponents of the ban have repeatedly\nargued that TikTok is ``brainwashing Americans,'' but these claims are,\nat best, just speculation. At worst, they are a disguised effort to\ntarget Americans' speech.\n  So don't take it from me. In an affidavit in the District of Columbia\nCircuit, a senior intelligence officer stated that the government has\n``no information'' that China coerced ByteDance to covertly manipulate\ncontent on TikTok. That is coming from our own government. That alone\nshould make us pause.\n  This is in the DC Circuit Court. They are not lying to a circuit\ncourt. So they don't have any information with regard to that\naccusation.\n  Even worse, rather than addressing China's supposed influence over a\nkey communications channel, the TikTok ban appears to be driving users\nto alternative Chinese applications which we know even less about. In\nfact, on Monday, RedNote--a China social media app--became the No. 1\nmost downloaded app on the Apple app store.\n  Is that the outcome that the law's supporters were seeking or thought\nabout?\n  The TikTok ban not only threatens to shut down a platform critical\nfor 170 million Americans, but also, 7 million American businesses use\nTikTok. They use it as part of their business. All of that will shut\ndown on Sunday, 4 days from now--just shut down--7 million businesses\nwho use it.\n\n  And it is taking effect, at least in parts of America, at the single\nworst period of time, a moment when TikTok creators in Los Angeles are\nusing the app to share their stories and find resources during the\ntragic wildfires; a moment when a new President is set to take office\nwith different views on the ban--and President-elect Trump is asking\nfor a pause right now, asked the Supreme Court of the United States for\na pause--Donald Trump--a moment when the Supreme Court is still\nconsidering the case, hasn't even rendered a decision yet; a moment\nwhen the first official bid for TikTok was just submitted last week.\n  It is time for Congress to acknowledge that the rushed passage of\nthis law was a mistake. There were no hearings in the Senate. There\nwere no witnesses in the Senate. No one got to hear anything about this\nban because they put it into the bill that was going to provide\nmilitary aid for Ukraine, for Israel--humanitarian aid--and they just\nstuck the TikTok ban into the legislation over in the House of\nRepresentatives to send it over here.\n  We never had a hearing. We never had any consideration. And it is\ntime for Congress to acknowledge that the rushed passage of this law\nwas a mistake, that we need more time to let the courts and outside\nparties consider this issue. We need to do a better job of\nunderstanding the importance of the TikTok community and the impact of\na TikTok ban.\n  That is why I introduced the Extend the TikTok Deadline Act. This\nbill does not repeal the underlying act. It simply gives TikTok,\nCongress, the people here in the Senate, parties that might want to buy\nTikTok, the incoming Trump administration--he himself\n\n[[Page S178]]\n\nis asking for an extension--and outside stakeholders additional time to\nget this right.\n  We need time. We need time to figure this out. The court process is\nstill going on for something that started last April. That would never\nhave been expected to have occurred. We don't have any certainty as to\nthe outcome, one way or the other.\n  If this had happened in September, October, or November--out of the\ncourts--we could have then deliberated before the deadline on Sunday, 4\ndays from now. But it didn't happen that way.\n  So to the millions of creators who have bravely shared their stories\nand explained why TikTok is important to them, I hear you, I am\nlistening, and I encourage my colleagues to listen as well and to give\na short reprieve to TikTok's death sentence.\n  TikTok is far too important to let it die like this on Sunday without\nhaving given the extra time which is needed--time for President-elect\nTrump, time for everyone to think about what an alternative pathway\ncould be to letting TikTok die.\n  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the\nimmediate consideration of S. 103, introduced earlier today; further,\nthat the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the\nmotion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?\n  The Senator from Arkansas.\n  Mr. COTTON. Reserving the right to object, which I most certainly do,\nTikTok isn't just another social media platform, TikTok is a Chinese\ncommunist spy app that addicts our kids, harvests their data, targets\nthem with harmful and manipulative content, and spreads communist\npropaganda.\n  Congress recognized the unique dangers of TikTok when we voted on a\nmassive bipartisan basis last April to give its Chinese communist-\ninfluenced parent company ByteDance 270 days to sell TikTok to an\nAmerican buyer or to be shut down in America. That deadline is Sunday.\n  What is more, ByteDance and TikTok had plenty of additional warning\nfor years about the possibility of such action, long before Congress\nset this firm Sunday deadline. The Trump administration, in 2020,\nattempted to shut down TikTok.\n  So there was no rush as the Senator from Massachusetts asserted. We\ndidn't pull the rug out from under TikTok, and we didn't ban it.\nInstead, Congress simply demanded that the app could no longer be owned\nand controlled by our Nation's worst enemy, communist China.\n  In other words, TikTok's owners had plenty of time to find a buyer,\nand there were plenty of willing buyers as well. Instead, TikTok\nwhined, lied, complained, sued, and lobbied. Oh, how they lobbied.\n  One notable lobbyist told me that he was offered $100,000 a month--\n$100,000 a month--to represent TikTok, but he refused because TikTok is\na sewer of vile anti-Semitism. Good for him.\n  Unfortunately, I can't say that for the army of lawyers and lobbyists\nwho saddled up on behalf of communist China. They know who they are.\nThey should be ashamed of themselves, and they should know that I, for\none, won't forget it.\n  So let me be crystal clear. There will be no extensions, no\nconcessions, and no compromises for TikTok. ByteDance and the Chinese\ncommunists had plenty of time to make a deal. In fact, the legislation\nallows the President to grant a 90-day extension to the Sunday\ndeadline, though only if negotiations have substantially advanced, and\nthe sale could likely close in 90 days.\n  Neither is true today so I expect President Biden will not grant the\nextension. And what President Biden cannot do under current law, this\nCongress--this Republican Congress--certainly won't do by changing the\nlaw, not over my objection, in any case.\n  And isn't it telling that ByteDance says communist China blocked the\nsale of TikTok for these last 9 months? What exactly does that tell us?\nExactly what I said earlier: TikTok is a Chinese communist spy app.\nConsider one reason why the bill passed with such a huge bipartisan\nvote in April; namely, the backlash against TikTok for its deranged\nlobbying campaign against the bill.\n  As the bill was being considered by a House committee, TikTok sent\npush notifications to its users demanding that they call into Congress\nand express opposition to the bill. This wasn't a case of American\ncitizens spontaneously rising up to exercise their First Amendment\nrights but rather a foreign power egging them on, meddling in our\npolitics, influencing our legislative debates.\n  And what happened? Thousands of children--kids--called into\ncongressional offices, some threatening to kill themselves or to\nassassinate Members of Congress. No foreign adversary should have that\nkind of power over our politics or our children.\n  Imagine how Chinese communists would use TikTok to influence our\npolitical debates during, say, a moment of heightened tensions over\nTaiwan. And let's examine a little more closely just what TikTok does\nto our country. Just last week, renowned social psychologist Jonathan\nHaidt wrote that ``TikTok is Harming Children on an Industrial Scale.''\n  China's version of TikTok promotes math, science, and learning,\nbasically telling Chinese kids to do their homework and eat their\nvegetables and respect their elders--most especially Chairman Xi, the\nChinese dictator. In America, by contrast, TikTok promotes violence,\nobscenity, eating disorders, drug use, and even suicide.\n  Internal company documents even revealed that content promoting\npedophilia has long flowed right past TikTok's supposed moderators.\n  Without question, TikTok's lethal algorithm has cost the lives of\nmany American kids. China also uses TikTok to amplify its propaganda\nand suppress information critical of the communist tyranny in Beijing.\nCompared to other platforms, TikTok suppresses content related to\nChina's genocide against the Uighur people, Tibet, Taiwan, the South\nChina Sea, Hong Kong, Tiananmen Square, and the origins of COVID, among\nother topics.\n  TikTok also meddles in the politics of other countries by amplifying\ndivisive content in, for instance, Israel, India, and, of course,\nAmerica. And don't forget that TikTok harvests a vast trove of user\ndata, including name, age, email, address, phone number, credit card\nnumber, facial features, voiceprints, keystrokes, photos, videos, and\nviewing habits.\n  This data can make users susceptible to manipulation and even\nblackmail, not only today but also years from now when users may have\nbecome influential persons in the military, the intelligence community,\nbusiness, media, and other walks of life.\n  We are sometimes assured that TikTok has taken security measures to\nprevent Chinese communists from accessing this data of American\ncitizens, but according to whistleblower testimony and internal company\nmaterials, these protections are about as airtight as a screen door.\n  So the end is coming for Chinese communist-controlled TikTok. Perhaps\nthe sale can be closed by Sunday, though I seriously doubt it. Even so,\nthat sale would have to pass legal review and guarantee that China\nretains no residual influence at the company or through its algorithm,\nno residual influence whatsoever. But one way or the other, communist\nChina will no longer exert this massive influence over our Nation and\nour kids.\n  I will now yield to Senator Ricketts.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.\n  Mr. RICKETTS. Reserving the right to object. The Chinese Communist\nParty is our chief foreign adversary in the world and the only external\nexistential threat to our Nation.\n  They threaten our freedom, our prosperity, our security, and our very\nway of life. When I was Governor of Nebraska, I was the first Governor\nto ban TikTok on State devices because of the threat it posed. Why did\nI do that? Well, because Xi Jinping said that he wants to replace us as\nthe world leader. Dictators tend to say what they are going to do and\ntry and do it. We should take him seriously.\n  TikTok is one of the ways that he is trying to do it, trying to\nundermine what we do around the world. The Chinese Communist Party\nwants to replace us; TikTok is one of the ways they are trying to\ninfluence our downfall.\n\n[[Page S179]]\n\n  As many as 150 million Americans use TikTok. Fifty-two percent of\nthem say they regularly get news through TikTok, and we know that the\nCCP uses TikTok to slant the news. This is part of their propaganda.\n  Data shows, for example, my esteemed colleague from Arkansas\nreferenced it, the anti-Semitism on TikTok. If you go back and look,\nyou can see 50 times the posts on pro-Hamas, pro-Palestinian content,\n50 times the views, despite the fact that overwhelmingly Americans\nsupport Israel--the polling shows it--and that is just one of the\nissues that they get involved with.\n  We wouldn't allow any foreign adversary, TV stations, radio stations,\nor newspapers to reach 150 million Americans. Why are we allowing our\nchief adversary in the world, one that seeks our downfall, to have that\nkind of access? It makes absolutely no sense.\n  And, of course, the Chinese Communist Party has no free rights in\nAmerica. Those belong to American citizens. We need to make sure we\ntake a step against this. And last April, we did, overwhelmingly,\nbipartisan, bicameral because this Congress saw the threat that TikTok\nposes by the Chinese Communist Party being able to influence ByteDance\nbecause they have to. ByteDance is a Chinese company. It has to do\nwhatever the Chinese Communist Party says. That is their law. They have\nto do what the Chinese Communist Party says, so, therefore, they push\nthe propaganda.\n  As my colleague from Arkansas pointed out, they spy on Americans,\ncollect data on Americans. So we saw a bipartisan effort, over 350\nvotes in the House, to pass this bill and, by the way, the same\nbipartisan support here in the Senate, passing 79 to 18.\n  The law gathered so much bipartisan, bicameral support because we\nrecognized this was about keeping America and Americans safe; that\nByteDance needed to divest TikTok so that we could be assured that the\nChinese Communist Party wasn't pushing its propaganda or spying on us.\n  We acted with conviction against that threat, and of course we know\nfrom our classified briefings what that threat for TikTok was. And this\nthreat is not something far off or imagined. We have seen TikTok's\ninterference in elections elsewhere around the world, most recently in\nRomania. The European Commission just opened an investigation on\nTikTok's failure to limit election interference in Romania's election,\nand that has caused all sorts of disruption in that country.\n  India has banned TikTok for the very same reason that they are seeing\nthe push of Chinese propaganda slants on their news media the same way\nwe see it here in America.\n  Albania, worried about Romania, banned TikTok. We passed a law that\ndid not ban TikTok. We passed a law that said you have to have an\nAmerican owner like, I don't know, radio stations, TV stations,\nnewspapers. The Senator from Massachusetts would like to give us a 270-\nday extension. What is going to be different? What is going to be\ndifferent?\n  ByteDance has had 270 days, and rather than making legitimate\nattempts to find a buyer--and, by the way, you all recall the news\nstories when this law was being discussed and being passed. There were\na number of Americans who said they would be interested in buying them.\nByteDance didn't do anything.\n  Rather than looking for an American buyer, they decided to hire an\narmy of lobbyists and lawyers to try and subvert the will of the\nCongress. They spent the last 270 days trying to avoid being sold. As\nmy colleague said, the Chinese Communist Party will not let them be\nsold.\n  That, in and of itself, should tell you everything you need to know\nabout this. If the Chinese Communist Party is refusing ByteDance to\nsell TikTok to an American buyer, you know they are using it to push\ntheir propaganda and to collect data on us. They don't want those\nalgorithms coming to America because then they will be exposed. That is\nwhat this is about.\n  This is a national security threat. That is why we took action last\nApril. They have had these 270 days. They did nothing with them. To\nextend would mean nothing as well, except give the Chinese Communist\nParty another 270 days to push their propaganda and to spy on more\nAmericans.\n  Finally, today, in our Foreign Relations Committee hearing, we had\nthe confirmation hearing for Senator Rubio, who has been nominated for\nSecretary of State.\n  I asked him in his confirmation hearing earlier today why average\nAmericans in Nebraska should care about the threat the Chinese\nCommunist Party poses to our way of life, and he had a great response,\nand I want to read it here.\n  He said:\n\n       If we stay on the road we're on right now, in less than ten\n     years, virtually everything that matters to us in life will\n     depend on whether China will allow us to have it or not.\n\n  Folks, this is a clear test of whether America is going to get off\nthat road. Are we willing to change direction? Are we willing to say to\nthe Chinese Communist Party enough, no further, not now? We are\nchanging. We are getting away from the bad practices of the past that\nthe Chinese Communist Party is taking advantage of.\n  Let's send a clear signal to Beijing that America's national security\nis going to take priority. Let's stand strong. Let's remember, we\npassed this law for a reason, and it is to keep Americans safe, and,\ntherefore, I object.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.\n  The Senator from Massachusetts.\n  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I am disappointed that my colleagues have\nobjected to this simple legislation. I recognize the national security\nrisk here. But the fearmongering about the supposed anti-American\ncontent on TikTok is the exact type of government overreach that has\nleft tens of millions of Americans furious. The hyperbolic statements\nmade by my colleagues are especially concerning, given that the\nintelligence community itself has acknowledged that it has no\ninformation that China is covertly manipulating content on TikTok--no\ninformation.\n  Let me say that again: In the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, the\ngovernment was asked to present evidence that ByteDance was covertly\nmanipulating content on TikTok for the benefit of the Chinese\nGovernment, and the intelligence community submitted an affidavit\nsaying that the government has no information that it is being\nmanipulated.\n  So as we are out here today--by the way, that would change the whole\ndebate. If they had information, we would be having a different debate.\nIf there were proof that they were manipulating, provided by the\nintelligence community, we would be having a different debate. They\ndon't have any information.\n  And I sat in the same intelligence briefings that my colleagues did,\nand I kept waiting to hear that information. I never heard it. I don't\nthink it is giving up secrets to say: I didn't hear any secrets.\n  I didn't hear them because there weren't any. And they made that\nfiling in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. They have no information.\n  And I have read the reports and news articles. I have tracked the\ncourt case closely. I am clear-eyed about the risk. But unlike many of\nmy colleagues, I am also clear-eyed about the profound economic,\npolitical, and social importance of TikTok to 170 million users and 7\nmillion businesses in the United States, and I understand how many\ncreators depend on TikTok to find community, share their story, find\nresources.\n  So my ask again here is simple: 270 days, and we can try to find a\nresolution of this issue that doesn't have a draconian cutoff on Sunday\nafternoon.\n  So this is the issue that we are confronted with at this point. We\ndon't have the evidence that is being cited by my colleagues on the\nother side of the aisle. It doesn't exist. They may believe it, but\nthey don't have the evidence to present to this body because the\nintelligence community has not provided it. Otherwise, again, as I am\nsaying, we would have a very different debate.\n  And this is a very important issue because the Supreme Court just had\na hearing--it is unbelievable that it is 9 months later--on the\nconstitutionality of your ban. So I think that the colleagues of mine\nwho spoke on the other side, they are saying: Well, they should have\nalready sold it.\n\n[[Page S180]]\n\n  Well, they took it to court to find out if this law was\nconstitutional. They have a right to do that. They have a right to go\nto the Supreme Court. They have a right to have a hearing. They have a\nright to make their case. They have a right to say it is\nunconstitutional. It hasn't been ruled on yet. It hasn't been ruled on.\n  And so because of that, all I am asking for is more time.\n  Listen to Donald Trump. He is saying: Give it more time.\n  That is all I am asking for.\n  And I will say, as well, when my friend cites suicides and other\nincredible consequences of social media in our society, I do agree with\nhim 100 percent. But it is not just TikTok. It is Instagram. It is\nFacebook. It is company after company after company that is targeting\n14-year-old girls with bulimia, with anorexia, with information that is\nmaking them even sicker and sicker and sicker. That is why, when my\nbill was killed here in December to pass a law which said that parents\ncan just say: Erase all that information you are gathering about my\ndaughter--and it is the third Congress in a row that happened. Yes,\nTikTok should be stopped, and so should Facebook, and so should\nInstagram--so should all of them.\n  But just don't raise it in a TikTok context. Raise it in a Senate\ncontext.\n  That law should have passed. That should have already been on the\nPresident's desk. And it was bipartisan. It was bipartisan. You want to\ntalk about lobbyists. You want to talk about stopping legislation.\n  So I agree with the gentleman on the fundamental fact that TikTok is\na contributor to this problem, but it is a part of a larger problem.\nAnd I also want to make the point that there is no imminent threat of a\ncompromise of this information that we are talking about here today\nbecause the intelligence community does not, in fact, have the\ninformation to say that that is accurate.\n  So I agree with Donald Trump. Give it more time. Allow for the\nprocess to play out. Allow for the Supreme Court to make a decision.\nAllow for potential buyers to step forth. Allow for the users of\nTikTok, the 7 million businesses that use it for their own families--\nallow for the families in the fire zone in L.A. to continue to use it\nto build community, to run their small businesses, and not cut it off\non Sunday. And that is what I have been asking the Senate to do.\n  So I regret that the objection has been raised by my colleagues. But\nI tell you there is going to be real harm, and my hope is that I can\npartner with President-elect Trump to try to find a resolution of this\nissue so that we do it with the information that, right now, we do not\nhave to take such an action.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.\n  Mr. COTTON. I want to respond briefly to a few points from my friend\nfrom Massachusetts, and he is my friend. I want to make an underlying\nstatement, first off, for the Record, because this is a notable day.\nDirect quotes from the Senator from Massachusetts: ``Listen to Donald\nTrump,'' and ``I agree with Donald Trump.'' Underline that in the\nRecord. I am not sure you are going to see that again for the next 4\nyears.\n  But, more importantly, on this issue, the Senator is correct that\nTikTok is not alone in causing harm for American kids. I agree with\nhim. Other apps can result in eating disorders or depression or mental\nillness.\n  I voted for his legislation in December. I had my own online safety\nlegislation. The difference is that TikTok is influenced and controlled\nby the Chinese Communist Party. And this bill did not just address\nTikTok; it addressed all foreign adversary-owned apps.\n  You raised the question of RedNote. Well, guess what. If TikTok users\nflood to RedNote, they are going to face the same challenge there\nbecause it is also controlled by the Communist Party.\n  Second, the Senator has made a lot about some affidavit by some\nintelligence community official in some case. I don't know what it is\nreferring to. I do know this: I have been on the Intelligence Committee\nfor 10 years. I chair it now. I have heard the testimony of senior\nleaders that TikTok poses a great threat to our national security and\nour people's well-being.\n  But I also know this: Third, you don't need intelligence. TikTok's\nown internal documents reveal the threat that it poses to Americans.\nThe State attorneys general have brought lawsuits to defend their\npeople. Those lawsuits have produced documents that showed, chapter and\nverse, exactly what TikTok has done to Americans.\n  And, finally, we keep hearing: It is only 270 days. It is only 270\ndays.\n  In 270 days, that is what TikTok will say again because it will not\nhave been sold because Chinese communists won't allow it to be sold,\nbecause it is not just another app. It is not Instagram or Facebook or\nX or anything else. It is a Chinese communist spy app.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.\n  Mr. RICKETTS. I just want to briefly build upon my colleague from\nArkansas.\n  Two quick points: One, our colleague from Massachusetts has called\nthis a TikTok ban. That is inaccurate. The law that was passed, as my\ncolleague pointed out, was about foreign adversaries and required\nTikTok to be sold to an American owner.\n  If it had been sold, TikTok could continue to be in operation. And my\nunderstanding is, even if it is forced to close down because it hasn't\nsold by Sunday, if it is sold in the future, it will be able to\nreestablish operations, as long as it is to an American buyer.\n  So it is not a ban.\n  The reason it is a ban is because TikTok and the Chinese Communist\nParty chose to make it a ban. ByteDance has not tried to parallel-path\nthis, which was my colleague from Massachusetts' point. They could have\nbeen trying to sell it, the same time they were going through the\ncourt, and had that ready. In fact, they could have written a document\nsaying: I am only going to sell if the Supreme Court says I have to.\nThey could have found a buyer and written a contract that way--\nabsolutely. They didn't have to make this a ban.\n  And with regard to my colleague from Massachusetts' other point, I\ndid offer a proof point based upon data here in the United States about\nhow TikTok pushes a Chinese Communist Party agenda to push their\npropaganda. In this case, it was anti-Semitism against Israel by\npromoting pro-Hamas, the terrorist group, posts--its posts--and then\npro-Palestinian posts versus Israeli pro-Israel ones. So I gave data\nthere.\n  But this is exactly the same kind of pushing of propaganda which has\nled, I presume, India to ban TikTok, as well, because the Chinese\nCommunist Party is doing the same thing to them.\n  So a couple of points on this, and, again, I don't think anything\nwill be different 270 days from now because the Chinese Communist Party\nwill not allow TikTok to be sold because their algorithm would be\nexposed.\n  With that, I would just end by saying that China must be deterred.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.\n\n                      Unanimous Consent Agreement\n\n  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, at 5:50 p.m.\ntoday, the Senate vote in relation to the following amendments: Cornyn\nNo. 14 and Coons No. 23.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?\n  Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.\n\n                  Amendment No. 14 to Amendment No. 8\n\n  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we just locked in a vote on my amendment.\n  I would like to call up my amendment No. 14 to Senate amendment No. 8\nand ask that it be reported by number.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.\n  The bill clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment\n     numbered 14 to amendment No. 8.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n    (Purpose: To expand the list of criminal offenses that subject\n              inadmissible aliens to mandatory detention)\n\n       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the\n     following:\n       ``(ii) is charged with, is arrested for, is convicted of,\n     admits having committed, or admits committing acts which\n     constitute the essential elements of any burglary, theft,\n     larceny, shoplifting, or assault of a law enforcement officer\n     offense, or any crime that\n\n[[Page S181]]\n\n     results in death or serious bodily injury to another\n     person,'';\n       (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (4); and\n       (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:\n       ``(2) Definition.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(E), the\n     terms `burglary', `theft', `larceny', `shoplifting', `assault\n     of a law enforcement officer', and `serious bodily injury'\n     have the meanings given such terms in the jurisdiction in\n     which the acts occurred.\n\n  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to offer an amendment that would\nadd one more crime to the list covered by this legislation, and that\nwould be assault of a law enforcement officer.\n  Anyone who comes into the country illegally and harms these brave men\nand women in uniform is dangerous, and dangerous not only to our first\nresponders but also to the safety and security of all Texans and\ncommunities all around the country.\n  Unfortunately, we know, under the Biden-Harris administration, these\npeople who are committing these kinds of crimes are routinely being\nreleased back into the streets, as we saw last February in New York\nCity when seven people were arrested for assaulting a police officer--\nassaulting multiple police officers--outside of a migrant shelter in\nTimes Square. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg made the decision\nto release five of these criminal suspects without bail.\n  There is no question that these criminals should have been detained\nand removed before they could go on and commit other crimes against\ninnocent victims.\n  My amendment simply would require ICE to promptly take migrants who\nassault law enforcement officers into custody and ensure that illegal\nmigrants who commit crimes against the men and women in blue are\nswiftly detained so they can be removed from our country.\n  I urge adoption of my amendment.\n  I yield the floor.\n  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.\n  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.\n  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for\nthe quorum call be rescinded.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed\nto finish my brief remarks before we proceed to the vote.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n\n                            Amendment No. 23\n\n  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, we are about to consider two amendments to\nthe Laken Riley Act. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to amendment\nNo. 23, which would strike section 3 of the Laken Riley Act.\n  I respect that colleagues on both sides of the aisle have expressed\ntheir intention to vote for the Laken Riley bill and to advance it. I\nhave not yet made any such commitment out of concern about the\nunintended consequences of several provisions of this bill. I want to\nbriefly speak to the consequences of the section that my amendment\nwould strike.\n  Amidst real resource constraints, unpredictable migration patterns,\nand fluctuating diplomatic sensitivities, our Federal law enforcement\nofficers at ICE and CBP make thousands of complex decisions day in and\nday out about how to deal with interior enforcement, about border\nencounters, who to detain, and who to release. It is because these\ndecisions involve so many complex factors that the Supreme Court has\nrepeatedly recognized that the Federal Government is and should be the\nultimate authority on enforcement of our immigration laws.\n  Section 3, however, would mark a sea change by inviting every State\nattorney general to sue whenever they disagree with even an individual-\nlevel Federal decision regarding detention and removal. This could\ncreate uncertainty or even chaos by encouraging conflicting lawsuits\nbrought by different States in different courts.\n  I will remind my colleagues that this provision may have been drafted\nwhen the view was that Republican States' attorneys general would sue a\nDemocratic administration to move closer towards the enforcement vision\nthat they prioritized. Roughly half of the State attorneys general\nbelong to each political party.\n  I hope that my colleagues who have reflected upon the consequences of\nthis provision will conclude that we should not have the division and,\nfrankly, ultimately the chaos in the enforcement of our immigration\nlaws that would likely result from having a raft of lawsuits brought by\nState attorneys general in courts all over the country testing and\nchallenging almost literally every detention decision.\n  I believe it is possible for this act to be improved, for it to\nadvance public safety, and for it to make a contribution to the\ncountry, and it is my hope that the amendments being offered will be\ntaken up and passed.\n  I will urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment for all of my colleagues\nbecause I think an improved bill should be the ultimate objective of\nthis amendment process.\n  I yield the floor.\n\n                        Vote on Amendment No. 14\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on\nadoption of amendment No. 14 offered by the Senator from Texas, Mr.\nCornyn.\n  Mr. CORNYN. I ask for the yeas and nays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The bill clerk called the roll.\n  Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the\nSenator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from West Virginia\n(Mr. Justice), and the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis).\n  Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis)\nwould have voted ``aye'' and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty)\nwould have voted ``aye.''\n  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) is\nnecessarily absent.\n  The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 25, as follows:\n\n                       [Rollcall Vote No. 3 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--70\n\n     Baldwin\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Bennet\n     Blackburn\n     Blumenthal\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Cantwell\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Collins\n     Coons\n     Cornyn\n     Cortez Masto\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fetterman\n     Fischer\n     Gallego\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hassan\n     Hawley\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hoeven\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Kelly\n     Kennedy\n     Klobuchar\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Lujan\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Ossoff\n     Paul\n     Peters\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rosen\n     Rounds\n     Rubio\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Shaheen\n     Sheehy\n     Slotkin\n     Sullivan\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Wicker\n     Young\n\n                                NAYS--25\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Gillibrand\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kim\n     King\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Padilla\n     Reed\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Smith\n     Van Hollen\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n\n                             NOT VOTING--4\n\n     Hagerty\n     Justice\n     Lummis\n     Wyden\n  The amendment (No. 14) was agreed to.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Britt). The Senator from Delaware.\n\n                            Amendment No. 23\n\n  Mr. COONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the\npending amendment and call up my amendment No. 23, as provided under\nthe previous order.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Coons] proposes an amendment\n     numbered 23.\n\n  The amendment is as follows:\n\n(Purpose: To strike the section that authorizes State attorneys general\nto sue Federal immigration authorities for alleged violations relating\n                      to the detention of aliens)\n\n       Beginning on page 3, strike line 9 and all that follows\n     through page 8, line 10.\n\n  Mr. COONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1\nminute to this amendment.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?\n  Without objection, it is so ordered.\n\n[[Page S182]]\n\n  Mr. COONS. Madam President, I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of\nthis amendment, which would focus and streamline this bill and make\nmore likely its passage.\n  Many of us who have served here for many Congresses regret the\nfalling away of the frequency of amendments intended to improve the\nbill. My amendment would remove the section that will encourage endless\nlitigation by State attorneys general.\n  I will remind you, our States' attorneys general are roughly equally\ndivided between the parties, and attorneys general can now and today\nsue against what they believe is manifest injustice in the Federal\nimmigration system. This provision would encourage them to sue down to\nindividual detention and release decisions.\n  I think it improves the bill to remove that section and focus on its\ncritical public safety provisions.\n  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment and the consideration of\nadditional amendments in the future that will improve this bill.\n\n                        Vote on Amendment No. 23\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the amendment.\n  Mr. COONS. I ask for the yeas and nays.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?\n  There appears to be a sufficient second.\n  The clerk will call the roll.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.\n  Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the\nSenator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from West Virginia\n(Mr. Justice), and the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis).\n  Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis)\nwould have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty)\nwould have voted ``nay.''\n  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) is\nnecessarily absent.\n  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 49, as follows:\n\n                       [Rollcall Vote No. 4 Leg.]\n\n                                YEAS--46\n\n     Alsobrooks\n     Baldwin\n     Bennet\n     Blumenthal\n     Blunt Rochester\n     Booker\n     Cantwell\n     Coons\n     Cortez Masto\n     Duckworth\n     Durbin\n     Fetterman\n     Gallego\n     Gillibrand\n     Hassan\n     Heinrich\n     Hickenlooper\n     Hirono\n     Kaine\n     Kelly\n     Kim\n     King\n     Klobuchar\n     Lujan\n     Markey\n     Merkley\n     Murphy\n     Murray\n     Ossoff\n     Padilla\n     Peters\n     Reed\n     Rosen\n     Sanders\n     Schatz\n     Schiff\n     Schumer\n     Shaheen\n     Slotkin\n     Smith\n     Van Hollen\n     Warner\n     Warnock\n     Warren\n     Welch\n     Whitehouse\n\n                                NAYS--49\n\n     Banks\n     Barrasso\n     Blackburn\n     Boozman\n     Britt\n     Budd\n     Capito\n     Cassidy\n     Collins\n     Cornyn\n     Cotton\n     Cramer\n     Crapo\n     Cruz\n     Curtis\n     Daines\n     Ernst\n     Fischer\n     Graham\n     Grassley\n     Hawley\n     Hoeven\n     Hyde-Smith\n     Johnson\n     Kennedy\n     Lankford\n     Lee\n     Marshall\n     McConnell\n     McCormick\n     Moran\n     Moreno\n     Mullin\n     Murkowski\n     Paul\n     Ricketts\n     Risch\n     Rounds\n     Rubio\n     Schmitt\n     Scott (FL)\n     Scott (SC)\n     Sheehy\n     Sullivan\n     Thune\n     Tillis\n     Tuberville\n     Wicker\n     Young\n\n                             NOT VOTING--4\n\n     Hagerty\n     Justice\n     Lummis\n     Wyden\n  The amendment (No. 23) was rejected.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.\n\n                           Order of Business\n\n  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, filing cloture does not signal an end to\nour amendment process. We have been having constructive conversations\nall day. Those yielded the votes this evening, and I expect those\nconversations to continue tonight and into tomorrow so we can vote on\nmore amendments this week. But at some point, we need to pass this\ncommonsense legislation and get it to the House so that they can ratify\nwhat we have done.\n\n                             Cloture Motion\n\n  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for\nCalendar No. 1, S. 5.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under\nrule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.\n  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:\n\n                             Cloture Motion\n\n       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the\n     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,\n     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 1,\n     S. 5, a bill to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to\n     take into custody aliens who have been charged in the United\n     States with theft, and for other purposes.\n         John Thune, John Barrasso, Steve Daines, Bill Cassidy,\n           Katie Britt, Mike Lee, Kevin Cramer, Ted Budd, Jim\n           Banks, Dave McCormick, John Cornyn, John Hoeven, Rick\n           Scott of Florida, Roger Marshall, Tommy Tuberville, Ron\n           Johnson, Dan Sullivan.\n\n  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask consent that the mandatory quorum\ncall be waived.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-2025-01-15-pt1-PgS161"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 51.91477097105235, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}