Mr. President, I was prepared to come to the floor today to seek unanimous consent to pass H.R. 5100, a bill to temporarily extend the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer Programs until September 30, 2026. However, because Senator Ernst is unavailable to state her objection to the bill, I have decided not to call for unanimous consent at this time. I want to express my condolences to Senator Ernst, a combat veteran who served in the Iowa National Guard, for the tragedy in Syria that killed two and injured three Iowa National Guard members. The bill I would have brought to the floor today would have re-opened the SBIR and STTR programs, which have been shut down now for more than 70 days. The bill was unanimously passed by the House, led by the Republican chairs of the House Small Business Committee and House Science Committee. Since the SBIR and STTR programs closed their doors, I have heard from hundreds of small businesses across the country that are being forced to lay off employees, cease critical research, and may soon have to close their doors for good. Passing H.R. 5100 is not just a matter of policy; it is about whether small innovative companies can survive. This is the only real path that will immediately reopen this program while we continue to negotiate. Each day the program is shut down, the further behind our innovation economy falls. The fate of this program lies in the hands of six negotiators: the chair and ranking member of the Senate Small Business Committee, the chair and ranking member of the House Small Business Committee, and the chair and ranking member of the House Science Committee. Five of these six negotiators agree that the best path forward is to temporarily extend the SBIR and STTR programs, to keep them running while we continue to negotiate reforms and a longer reauthorization. We have been working to try and find a path forward for a long-term reauthorization and will continue to do so, but we have yet to find a solution that does not irreparably harm innovative small businesses, nor have we found a solution that meaningfully addresses foreign due diligence concerns. The SBIR and STTR programs have produced technologies that have changed Americans' lives: the world's smallest heart pump, new cancer therapies, Alzheimer Disease treatments, GPS, and Qualcomm wireless communications systems. I am disappointed that these programs have been forced to shut down, ending funding for the most cutting-edge technologies being developed by our most nimble allies, small businesses. I am disappointed that a company in Pennsylvania may have to cease scaling their patented brake technology due to the lapse in the programs. I am disappointed that a company in Virginia producing the next generation of energy technologies is being forced to put their research on hold until these programs are re-opened. And I am disappointed that a company in Texas must put its progress towards unlocking unprecedented spacecraft maneuvering for our Agencies on hold. Just because we are unable to come to a long-term solution today does not mean we should decimate a critical part of our innovation ecosystem by keeping these programs closed. In May, I introduced a 52-page bill with my long-term vision for the programs. I want to provide small businesses with the certainty they deserve by making the programs permanent, ensuring we do not watch the clock hit zero like this again. I want to increase how much Agencies are required to allocate for these programs to maximize our innovation potential. I want to strengthen our commercialization efforts through allowing direct to phase II authority for all Agencies, as well as better data collection, better training, and specifically designated commercialization officers. I want to increase the number of new entrants by reauthorizing and codifying new programs that aim to reach underserved populations. And, like all of my colleagues, I want to make sure that our technology never falls into the hands of our adversaries. That is why I want to continue the bipartisan foreign due diligence program enacted in 2022, which has already successfully identified and mitigated foreign risk in its short period of implementation. If it were just up to me, I would want my bill to pass tomorrow. However, I understand that is not possible. That is why I have joined the four House negotiators in supporting a temporary extension while we figure out the long-term path forward that not only preserves our innovation ecosystem but supercharges it. As a long-time champion of the SBIR and STTR programs, I will continue to fight to protect the innovation ecosystem and the small businesses that support it. Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 213 (Wednesday, December 17, 2025) ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS ______ TRIBUTE TO KEVIN SEMPRINI

Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, I rise today to oppose the nomination of Casey Mulligan to be Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the Small Business Administration. On April 2, the committee reported out the Mulligan nomination by a vote of 10 to 9. Not one Democrat voted in support. Dr. Mulligan represents yet another radical departure from the norms we should expect from government, courtesy of the Trump administration. The Office of Advocacy was created to serve as an independent voice for small businesses. It is charged by statute with examining how Executive actions affect small businesses. However, Dr. Mulligan, an economist at the University of Chicago, subscribes to an ultraconservative school of thought that opposes regulation in almost any form. Dr. Mulligan actually rejects regulations that protect the environment, safeguard fair treatment of workers, and keeps products from injuring consumers. He has a decades-long track record of questioning basic protections that most Americans take for granted. He has cast doubt on the need for a mandatory minimum wage. He called into question paid sick leave and unemployment insurance. He vigorously opposes ObamaCare and even went so far as to make the absurd argument that ObamaCare was responsible for making the great recession even worse. This is the leadership that President Trump envisions for the independent Office of Advocacy. But this office is just too important to entrust to someone like Dr. Mulligan. As I stand here, countless small businesses across the Nation are facing the threat of closure because of President Trump's destructive trade war. Yet since coming under the control of this administration, the Office of Advocacy's Trump-appointed interim leadership has not yet held a single roundtable about tariffs or even, as far as anyone can tell, published a single word about how tariffs might be harming small businesses across our Nation. We have 13 million small businesses in America. Do you think that would be something that the Small Business Administration would be thinking about? How is it that an office whose sole purpose is to call attention to how small businesses are affected by administration policy has failed to mention tariffs even once? Are they talking to small businesses or are they looking over their shoulders and saying, ``No, we are just going to remain silent about the obvious,'' worried that anything that runs counter to the Trump administration's policy will lead to their dismissal. That is my concern, and that should be America's concern. If the interim leadership at the Office of Advocacy is too scared to raise the obvious point that small businesses are being crushed by the Trump tariffs, we can only imagine what the President's handpicked nominee will do if he is confirmed. The Office of Advocacy needs strong, independent leadership that can stand up to the administration when small businesses are under threat. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this nomination so that our Nation's 34 million small business owners have a real advocate looking out for them and not just another Trump yes-man. At this point, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 132 (Thursday, July 31, 2025) Nomination of Casey Mulligan

Mr. President, I rise this evening in strong opposition to S.J. Res. 7, the Congressional Review Act resolution that would repeal the Federal Communications Commission's commonsense rule allowing schools and libraries to use E-Rate funds--``E-Rate'' stands for ``Education Rate funds''--to ensure that there is access to the educational tools of a school or a library to every child in America, and that would occur by extending out the way in which we view this program so that Wi-Fi hotspots can be provided to students and to educators so that they can use them even when they are not in the school, even when they are not in the library. If we pass this resolution--the resolution which the Republicans are malevolently bringing out onto the floor--we are not simply undoing a regulation; we are pulling the plug on progress in our country; we are abandoning millions of students who lack the internet access needed to complete their homework, to attend class, to reach their full potential. This repeal will widen educational disparities in our country, it will deepen the digital divide, and it will slam shut the doors of opportunity for millions of children in our country. We should be doing everything in our power to close the homework gap that exists between rich and poor in our Nation, not reopen it, not make that homework gap even larger, making it more difficult for poor kids to get access to these educational tools they need. In this modern era, that absolutely meets the definition of a Wi-Fi hotspot. That is the society of 2025. You have to move to that era. That homework gap is the cruel chasm that separates students who have reliable internet access at home from those who don't. It is a gap that existed long before the COVID-19 pandemic, but it was laid bare when schools closed and kids were forced to learn from kitchen tables and living rooms. For some, the transition was difficult; for others, it was impossible. For too many children, especially in low-income, rural, and Black and Brown communities, they were locked out of virtual learning because, simply, they lacked a basic internet connection. You didn't have to worry about the families that had a good income. Those kids had internet at home when their schools were shut down during COVID. But you had to create some kind of a solution for kids who didn't have that at home. We saw the stories of the students sitting in parking lots outside fast-food restaurants just to pick up a Wi-Fi signal strong enough to complete their assignments. We saw families choosing between paying rent and paying for broadband. We saw the urgent, indisputable need for action. In that moment of need, Congress stepped up. We passed, at my request, $7 billion to help provide hotspots and other connectivity tools to students and educators. Demand was overwhelming in our Nation. We had a COVID shutdown. Schools were closed, and there was going to be a huge digital divide which would open up because kids in the suburbs, for the most part, had access, but kids who were poorer--and, disproportionately, they were Black and Brown--in our Nation did not. And we are still reeling from the effect that period of time had upon young people in our Nation. The program, as it was implemented, however, helped nearly 18 million students at 10,000 schools and libraries connect to the internet. I am very proud of that. It was a big difference in the lives of those kids. But that funding ran out, leaving millions of students across the country at risk of falling back into the digital divide. That is why, last year, the Federal Communications Commission took steps to extend the reach of the E-Rate Program--a program that I was proud to author in 1996 in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. If I can take you back to that period of time, not one home in America had broadband. We still lived in an analog world, not a digital world. We lived in a world of dial-up internet technology. Broadband had not been deployed. So the legislation, which I am proud to have been the House author of, along with Senators--what we did was we broke down every monopoly that existed. The telephone monopolies, the cable monopolies--they all were eliminated. Telephone companies could do what cable companies do. Cable companies could do what telephone companies do. All of a sudden, Comcast can offer phone service, and Verizon and AT&T can offer cable service. So they need to deploy broadband in order to accommodate all this information. We are going to move very rapidly into a digital era, into a broadband era, and it happened pretty much in the blink of an eye for about 80 percent of our country. We are still working on the final 10 percent of our Nation, but for the most part, it happened by the year 2000, 2001. It was done. People had it. Broadband was deployed. But what we did was we said to ourselves: We have got to take care of the poorest kids in our country as we move rapidly on a technological revolution. Yes, the economy is going to be absolutely exploding. In fact, about $1.5 trillion worth of private sector investment was put into that broadband expansion in just a 5-year period. It was incredible. It transformed our Nation. A 14-year-old girl today thinks that she has an entitlement to a 65- inch screen in her living room and a little digital device on her lap at the same time. That didn't exist in the year 2000. It all happened in the blink of an eye. Now, what would happen, though, to the kids that didn't come from suburban or wealthier families? So what I suggested was that we have a program, an education program, so that every time someone made a little phone call, there would be a little tax on it, and that tax would then create a fund. I called it the education fund, the Education Rate, and it ultimately just had a nickname called E-Rate. That is what helps to provide for internet service in schools--in schools in Harlem or Roxbury, MA, inner city, Washington, DC. That is what helps to supplement that, to make it possible for every kid to have access to the internet. That program works, and so far, it has spent about $70 billion. It is still the largest educational technology program in the history of the United States--$70 billion, very profitable. But times change, and we learn about what has to happen as we are changing the way in which our country operates and new technologies get developed. So, yes, we had that revolution from the 1996 act. I am very proud of it. We called the companies that got created Google, eBay, Amazon, Hulu, YouTube. I am very proud of that. We wanted a Darwinian, paranoia-inducing revolution out in the marketplace. We would no longer be tied to this old telecommunications system that Alexander Graham Bell would have recognized. No. We were moving on to the future, but with it, we had to bring along the young people in our Nation, and I mean every young person had to have access to it in their school, at their desk. So it was ensured to make sure that the schools and libraries had the connectivity which they needed. That is essentially what the E-Rate Program is all about. But as the technology evolved, so too did the nature of education in our Nation, and today, learning doesn't end when the school bell rings. Learning follows students home, and so should internet access for everybody--everybody. The Federal Communications Commission's decision to allow schools and libraries to lend Wi-Fi hotspots was not a radical idea; it was a responsible idea. It recognized that in the 21st century, a student's ability to succeed should not depend on whether their parents can afford a broadband subscription. It helped ensure that millions of students that relied upon the Emergency Connectivity Fund during the pandemic wouldn't suddenly lose access to crucial connectivity at home. In other words, the Federal Communications Commission learned from what happened during the pandemic, learned from what happened when I was able to move over the $7 billion for these Wi-Fi hotspots to help kids at home get it, and they said: Well, do you know what we should do? We should just make sure that no student is left offline. We will make it a permanent program. And they passed that regulation. You don't have to take my word for this. In study after study, it has been shown that students without access to broadband internet at home performed worse than their better educated, better connected classmates. It is not that these kids are smarter in the suburbs than the kids in the inner city. Those kids are just as smart. But you can't allow an education gap because the kids who have access are going to get a better education because they have access to the technology by which young people in our Nation get their education in the 21st century. So you have to make sure everyone gets access to it; otherwise, without access to broadband internet at home, those kids are going to perform worse than their better connected classmates. It is not that their intelligence is less than the kids in the suburbs. It is not that they wouldn't study as hard. They would. It is just that they don't have access. The Department of Education's National Assessment of Educational Progress, for example, has repeatedly shown that high-performing students had much better access to the internet at home. I don't think you have to be Horace Mann--the founder of the public school system in the United States--to think that that makes sense. Of course it does. In 2023, a study of Michigan students found that a student without access to home internet earned significantly lower grades--actually, 0.6 lower on the 4.0 scale--than their connected classmates. Not because they weren't as intelligent. Not because they wouldn't have learned equally well on their device. But you need the device. You need access. You need a Wi-Fi hotspot. You need internet at home. You need something that is going to help you to compete. By the way, we have another word for those kids. We call them the future of the 21st century in the United States of America. Kids that are 20 percent of our population, they are 100 percent of our future. We are living in a digital world, and it is a portable skill set that every child should be able to take to anywhere they want to go in the world for the rest of their lives. It will be a skill set that employs them, educates them, makes them better citizens. But you can't reach that stage if you are denying it to them when they are 6 years old, 8 years old, 10 years old, 12 years old, and expect them to be able to compete with the kids that come from wealthier families. That is what this vote is all about. It is all about that one issue. When I was a boy, I had my books. I could take them home. My father drove a truck for the Hood Milk company. I would take my books home. The school superintendent's kids would bring their books home. I could compete against them. Books are equal. That is not the world we live in anymore. If you don't have the internet at home, the other kids essentially have their books in their knapsack. It is called their iPad. They have their home computer. They have access. I am only here because it was books and I could compete against any kid in Malden, MA, in a blue-collar community. That is why I am a Senator. I had never even been to Washington before I got elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. That was my first visit to Washington. I am 29, 30 years old, but I have been competing because you give me the books you give the kid whose father is the school superintendent, and I will compete against him. As a matter of fact, I actually sit here at the desk which Jimmy Stewart--``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington''--had in the movie ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' He had never been to Washington. I had never been to Washington. But it didn't mean you couldn't do a good job if you had access to the same tools that young people had in the best school systems in America. That is what this debate is all about. It is about ensuring that every child has access to the internet through a Wi-Fi hotspot if they need it. If the school, the library, says we have got to help them at home, they don't have it--because that kid will fall behind the kids who have it. And it won't have anything to do with their ability, won't have anything to with their desire to be a full participant in this great American experiment. A study using Census Bureau data estimated that individuals with greater access to the computer and internet at home spent 28 percent more hours learning than those kids without that access. I mean, do we really need a study of this? Of course not. We know that is the truth. So as this evidence on home connectivity piles up, there is no debate: Students without access to internet at home are seriously disadvantaged compared to their classmates, plain and simple. I identified with this because my father was a truck driver. We didn't have trips to the Himalayas. We didn't have some kind of summer school at universities to help out my brothers and me when we were 15, 16, or 17. But we didn't feel deprived because we had the same books as the kids in the suburbs, in the private schools. We had the same books; and I am going to study as hard as I can. Today, that is not possible. If you don't have a Wi-Fi hotspot, you can't do it. If you don't have internet at home, you can't do it. You might want to do it, but you can't do it. And by the way, they know they don't have it. They can see the kids on the other side of town who have it. They know it. They are 9; they are 10; they are 11; they are 12. They know it. That is what this program is all about. It is just to say: You have got it; you have got it at home. Go to it. Be whoever you can be. These Republicans, they are going to vote this program out of existence. This is the great equalizer. This is the access to opportunity. This is democratization of access to opportunity through education, which is supposed to be the foundation of our country. You know, when I grew up, I would look at Abe Lincoln and his story. I would look at the movies about Abe Lincoln. He would be reading books by candlelight in his house on the prairie. That is all you needed, was the light, because the book was there. You could do it. Well, without a Wi-Fi hotspot, there is nothing to read. Your device is not working. You are denying that ambitious, hard-working, imaginative, creative young person--by the way, disproportionately Black and Brown in our Nation--from having the same opportunities that we have provided for 250 years since the dawn of our country. So we are putting these young people at a serious disadvantage compared to their classmates. So now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they want to just take that tool away. They want to rip the hotspots out of students' hands. Why? Let's just listen to a few of their arguments. First, the Congressional Review Act supporters say: The hotspots rule is illegal. This is simply untrue. It is not illegal. In section 254 of the Communications Act, Congress provided the FCC with flexibility to adapt the E-Rate program for changing times and educational conditions. How do I know? I am the author of that provision. So when people tell me it is illegal, it is not illegal. I wrote the provision which says the Federal Communications Commission can do this for the children of our Nation. Second, the Congressional Review Act supporters argue that the hotspots rule endangers students by allowing them to access inappropriate content, including on social media. False. That is also not true. Under the Children's Internet Protection Act, schools and libraries receiving E-Rate dollars must ensure that hotspots block or filter images that are obscene or harmful to minors. By the way, with all the crocodile tears coming down from my colleagues on the other side about their concern for children, I have had a children's online privacy protection act pending here in the Senate for years that gives total privacy protection to children under the age of 17 in our Nation, and we can't get it passed. Why can't we get it passed? Because too many Republicans are concerned about what the big social media companies might say to them. Well, where is their concern, then, for the poor child being exposed? Not there. They should be more concerned about what Meta is doing to them, what Google is doing to them, what those big companies are doing--because, under the law, it can't happen under the E-Rate dollars. It can't happen. It is illegal. We need another law to pass that makes it illegal to let the big social media companies in our country do the same thing. If my colleagues are really so concerned about children's online privacy and safety, I urge them to support my legislation--if they care about it--because that would block it. Third, they say that the program is wasteful. That is false. Again, the hotspots rule limits the amount of money that can be requested by an E-Rate applicant and prohibits the duplication of the funding. It is all written into the law. Let me be clear: This repeal will not save the taxpayer a dime. What does the resolution really do? It doesn't make our schools stronger. It doesn't make our libraries better. It doesn't improve student outcomes. It doesn't lower your taxes. It doesn't save the government money. All it does is strip away a lifeline for the children in our Nation who need it the most, that they can take it home with them, that they can study at home. That is it. So this E-Rate expansion didn't just connect students; it connected futures. It helped make good on the promise that every child, regardless of their income, their race, their geography deserves a fair shot at learning, and that promise is worth defending. It is worth defending. Education is a great equalizer. It is the foundation of our democracy, the engine of our economy, and the heartbeat of our shared American dream that any child, regardless of where they come from, regardless of who their mother and father is, can dream the great dreams. But we have to give them access to the tools they need in order to maximize all of their God-given abilities. In today's world, to be cut off from the digital world is to be cut off from education. And that means that broadband is not a luxury; it is a necessity. It is an essential tool as much as a textbook or schoolbus or a lunch program. This is not a partisan issue. It is not a liberal issue. It is not a conservative issue. It is a children's issue. It is an American issue. It is who we should be. It is a fairness issue. I urge my colleagues to not vote to deepen inequality. Instead, vote to affirm our values. Vote to defend every child's right to learn, to thrive, to reach for the stars. Let's reject this resolution and recommit ourselves to closing the homework gap so that all children have equal access to learning. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming. Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 76 (Wednesday, May 7, 2025) MEASURE READ THE FIRST TIME--S. 1668

Mr. President, I rise today to lawfully extend the deadline by which ByteDance must either divest TikTok or face a ban in the United States. In a few moments, I will ask unanimous consent to pass my legislation with Senator Wyden, Senator Van Hollen, and Senator Booker, the Extend the TikTok Deadline Act, to extend the divestment deadline until October. My colleagues may be wondering: Didn't President Trump just extend the TikTok deadline last week by 75 days? Why are we passing legislation to do the same thing? Well, it is because we need legislation because President Trump's move was illegal, both the first time he extended the deadline in January and his second extension last Friday. Although the statute permits the President to extend the TikTok deadline by 90 days if certain conditions are met, President Trump never triggered that provision in the statute. Instead, he twice issued Executive orders that directed the Department of Justice to not enforce the law for 75 days. Nothing in the statute permits President Trump to simply not enforce Federal law. By Trump's logic, he could negate any statute enacted by Congress by simply directing his administration to not enforce it. That is not how our system of government actually works. It is lawless, and it is dangerous. Beyond being an affront to the rule of law, these Executive orders are also unfair to TikTok's 170 million creators and users and the 7 million small businesses that rely on the platform to reach their customers. By lawlessly extending the TikTok divestment deadline, Trump has effectively put the fate of TikTok in the hands of risk-averse corporate shareholders at major technology companies like Oracle and Apple and Google. That is because the TikTok ban imposes up to $800 billion in fines for companies like Oracle and Apple and Google that help keep TikTok online and distribute the app through their app stores. Trump's lawless extension puts these companies in a difficult spot. They can comply with the law--take TikTok offline and face the wrath of Trump and the public--or they can violate the law--leave TikTok up and risk ruinous legal liability. So far, the tech companies have been willing to risk that liability based on promises from President Trump that he won't punish them. But we all know that President Trump's promises aren't worth a whole lot. The President could reverse course at any moment or threaten to rescind his Executive order to coerce these companies into supporting unrelated political objectives. No good comes from giving any President that kind of leverage. So while TikTok remains online today, these unilateral illegal extensions are unfair to TikTok's users and dangerous for our country. So here is the thing: I actually agree with the President on extending the TikTok divestment deadline. There was no reason that TikTok should have gone dark in January, just a couple of days after the Supreme Court ruled on the law. Clearly, the Supreme Court had only 2 days left to resolve all of the national security issues, all of the other issues that were surrounding this issue. It wasn't TikTok or anyone else's fault that it took all the way up until to 2 days before the deadline to have TikTok get an answer as to whether or not what was happening was constitutional. So we needed more time to have a negotiation over whether or not those national security issues and other issues could be resolved. It is now, ultimately, again, a decision that has to be made as to whether or not TikTok should have gone dark last week as rumors swirled about potential new investors in TikTok's U.S. business. We don't need to find a lawful solution; it is imperative that we find a lawful solution. That is why I am bringing my legislation out here. That will protect free speech rights of TikTok's 170 million users and will also give us some time to be able to negotiate an end. I want national security issues to be the central part of this negotiation, and I believe such a solution is possible. But unlawful, ad hoc extensions only sow chaos for the tech companies facing ruinous penalties and for the millions of Americans who rely on TikTok as a vital communications platform. Instead, Congress should pass my legislation, the Extend the TikTok Deadline Act, to lawfully extend the divestment deadline until October, creating legal certainty for TikTok's users and creators and giving all parties a longer period to reach a solution. So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of S. 103, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection? The Senator from Arkansas. Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object because I do object to this effort and will object to future efforts to change the TikTok law. Let's remember how we got here. TikTok is a Chinese communist spy app and a tool of Chinese communist propaganda. That is why Congress passed an overwhelmingly bipartisan law mandating that TikTok's parent company sell it if TikTok is to continue operating in America. Why did Congress pass this law? Because TikTok is not just another social media platform. TikTok addicts our kids, harvests their data, exposes them to pedophiles, and promotes harmful and manipulative content, including vile, anti-Semitic videos. TikTok also silences, censors, and suppresses content that exposes communist China for what it really is--a monstrous tyranny. The truth about China's genocide against the Tibet and Uighur people, the massacre at Tiananmen Square, the crackdown on Hong Kong, the origins of COVID, and more are all disappeared behind the veil of TikTok's algorithm. What TikTok doesn't say is only part of the problem. What it does say is deadly. The Chinese version of TikTok tells kids to study hard, eat their vegetables, and revere their dictator, Xi Jinping. But the American version of TikTok exposes our kids to videos that glamorize and glorify violence, obscenity, eating disorders, drug use, and even suicide. TikTok's lethal algorithm has, without question, cost the lives of too many Americans. That is why TikTok is so dangerous, and that is why Congress insisted that TikTok cut ties entirely with communist China. President Trump is trying to implement the law that Congress passed, and many American businesses and investors are, apparently, interested in buying TikTok. I applaud patriotic Americans who want to buy this app and cut all ties with the Chinese communists. But reports have surfaced that some businesses and investors want a bad deal that would violate the law by letting communist China continue to influence the TikTok algorithm. Even worse, these potential buyers may ask Congress to somehow indemnify them for violating the law or immunize them for TikTok's past crimes against and injuries to the American people, especially young Americans. Let me say bluntly to any American who wants to invest in some half- ass TikTok deal: Congress will never protect you from going into business with communist China. So American businesses and investors who want to dip their beaks in the golden TikTok fountain should think twice before giving their money and their good name to Chinese communists. If the TikTok deal maintains any operational relationship with China, you will be stuck with the consequences. Caveat emptor. So I do oppose this effort to change the law, and I will oppose, in the future, other efforts to change the law that Congress already passed. Let's allow President Trump to negotiate and see if communist China is willing to make a deal. If not, then the law is the law. Now I will yield to my colleague from Nebraska. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I echo my colleague from Arkansas' comments with regard to TikTok. Let's recall that in communist China, there really isn't such a thing as a private company, as much as ByteDance might want to say it is. The Chinese communist law is very clear that companies in China have to do what they are told to do by the Chinese Communist Party, and that is one of the reasons TikTok is so dangerous. TikTok, as has been covered by my colleague from Massachusetts, reaches 170 million people; 52 percent of those people say that they regularly get their news from TikTok. As I have risen on this floor in the past, I have discussed specific cases where the Chinese communists have been pushing their propaganda through TikTok. Now, let's also bear in mind that we would not allow any American TV, news station--even newspaper--to be able to own as much of the American marketplace as TikTok has today--170 million people. Current law says that you can only own 39 percent, for example, of the TV marketplace across the country. That would roughly equate to about 50 million households in the United States--far above what we are seeing here with what TikTok has access to. So if we are not going to allow Americans to be able to have such broad access to our population, why on Earth would we allow the Chinese Communist Party to do it? And by the way, the Chinese Communist Party has no First Amendment rights in this country. ByteDance was given 270 days to make a deal. The Communist dictator Xi Jinping clearly did not want it. They tried to lobby us. They avoided getting a deal done. President Trump came into office. They are still avoiding getting a deal done. The people who are taking on the liability here are the companies that are the facilitators. I urge those companies to reconsider. You should think carefully about what you are doing. The law is very clear. TikTok needs to be sold to an American owner to continue operation, not some half-baked plan, as my colleague from Arkansas was describing, where the Chinese Communist Party would still have influence on the TikTok algorithm, still have the ability to push their propaganda to the American people. That cannot happen. We need to make sure that the Chinese Communist Party cannot do that in our country. Again, we won't allow other TV or radio stations to have that much access. Why on Earth are we doing it with the Chinese Communist Party? It is absolutely ludicrous. We need to keep the pressure on. We need to make sure that TikTok is sold. I echo my colleague's comments with regard to any sort of future Chinese ownership that would allow them to be able to continue to do this. We need to make sure this is no longer going to threaten our young people. Therefore, Mr. President, I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. The Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I just want to reiterate what I said in my remarks--that ByteDance ownership in TikTok does create national security risks--but I also agree with my colleague. We just spoke. My colleague who just spoke said: Let's allow the President to continue to negotiate. Well, that is what my legislation does. It says that the President has out until October to negotiate a resolution that solves the national security-related issues. That time is needed because, in response to my colleague who said that he doesn't want a half-baked solution--well, that is what would happen if there was a rush to try to negotiate. So we need to give the President the legal space, passed by the Senate and the House, to be able to negotiate. That is all I am asking for. What the President is doing right now is illegally extending the time, creating a cloud of legal jeopardy over all of the American companies which deal with TikTok right now. So I think what I heard my colleague say was that they want to allow President Trump to negotiate, and that is what I am saying, except I am saying let's do it with the Senate having passed the legislation that gives him the time to do it in a very deliberate way so that the answer is not half-baked and that ultimately we can get to a resolution of this issue. I will also note, by the way, that in a filing at the U.S. circuit court of appeals, that the intelligence community did, in fact, say that they have no information that the Chinese Government has, in fact, compromised this information that can be used against the United States at this point in time. I would also add that I do agree with my colleague when he says that TikTok does prey upon young people, does contribute to mental health issues, especially amongst the teenagers and children in our society. But so does YouTube and so does Facebook and so does every one of the American sites. So if we want to deal with the problem of social media creating problems for young people in our society, let's pass a law. Let's pass a tough law. That is the law that I have been able to get out of the Senate Commerce Committee. It is a tough law. It is the Child Online Privacy Protection Act, up to the age of 16, and it says to companies: If the parents want this, you have to delete any information you have gathered about the child. It says: You can't target a teenager or a child with ads. Let's pass that law on the Senate floor, not just for TikTok but for the American companies as well, which invented this targeting of children. That was invented here, the targeting of children, exploiting of teenagers, causing this mental health crisis in our Nation. So it is time for us to, in my opinion, pass the legislation that has been objected to by my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle so that the President has the time to negotiate with the Chinese, with TikTok, about the national security issues, so that there is a divestment that does work and provides real security for Americans. But the next issue arises immediately because even if there is a divestment, that TikTok that is then American-owned, theoretically, is going to be targeting teenagers and children just the same way that every other American social media company does. Where is the concern about that? I hear it, but I don't hear any legislation coming out here on the floor from the Republican leadership to deal with the crisis, which everyone knows is front and center in our society right now. So I think this debate really gives us a great opportunity to have a wider conversation about all of the impact social media is having upon our society. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana. Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 64 (Wednesday, April 9, 2025) Maiden Speech