Floor Speech2025-01-13

LAKEN RILEY ACT--Motion To Proceed--Continued

Full Text

Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 6 (Monday, January 13, 2025) [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 6 (Monday, January 13, 2025)] [Senate] [Pages S85-S87] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] LAKEN RILEY ACT--Motion To Proceed--Continued The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic whip. Laken Riley Act Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, later today, the Senate will vote on the motion to proceed to legislation known as the Laken Riley Act. The loss of a child is something no parent should have to endure. My thoughts and prayers are with the family of Laken Riley--by any measure, an outstanding young woman. We should do everything possible to make sure this type of tragedy never occurs again. But I do have concerns about some of the language in this legislation. Let me give you an example. This bill would mandate immigration detention for an undocumented immigrant if they are arrested for shoplifting--even if they are never charged or convicted for that offense. Most people, having paid a little attention to law enforcement review, television, movies, know the process. You steal a candy bar, a hand on the shoulder, clerk says: Wait a minute. What are you doing here? Next thing you know a policeman is called in; he arrests you for shoplifting. They then take you in and charge you with that crime. You make a plea, guilty or not guilty. Ultimately, it is resolved by a trial of some nature. That is the ordinary process. The question is whether someone should be deported the very first time that the hand reaches your shoulder with candy bar in hand but no charge of any crime. That is what this bill does. That is going a little bit too far as far as I am personally concerned. This bill would mandate immigrant detention if they are arrested for shoplifting, not convicted, even if they are never charged or convicted. Current law requires mandatory detention of individuals with serious criminal convictions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE. This has been on the books for a long time. It is the right thing to do. I don't want dangerous people coming into this country, and I don't want anyone dangerous and undocumented to stay in this country, period. Existing law gives ICE discretion to detain undocumented immigrants on a case-by-case basis. ICE assesses each case individually so the Agency's limited resources are used effectively to protect national security and public safety. This bill, as currently written, would eliminate ICE's discretion to prioritize [[Page S86]] detention and deportation of dangerous individuals. Instead, it requires--requires--ICE to treat a child arrested for shoplifting candy the same as an adult convicted of child abuse. Why? In practice, this would overwhelm ICE detention facilities and make America less safe. Let me tell you some of the numbers of this what appears to be simple bill. ICE told my office that this legislation would require them to detain more than 65,000 immigrants, but Congress has only provided ICE with funding to detain 42,000, and the Agency is already holding nearly that many. So if this legislation becomes law, ICE would be forced to release tens of thousands of other immigrants who were detained under ICE's current policies, which prioritize those who pose a threat to public safety. This bill would also grant State attorneys general the standing to sue if the State disagrees with many unrelated decisions made by Federal immigration authorities. It would require Federal courts to prioritize these cases to the greatest extent possible. This would rob Federal judges of the ability to control their courtrooms and grind their dockets to a halt. These standing provisions would also undermine the supremacy of the Federal Government over immigration and border security, which is established by our Constitution. They could also dramatically reduce legal immigration to our country. Because of the way it is drafted, the Department of State, under any administration, could be blocked from issuing any visas to nationals from a certain country, like India or China. Perhaps some of my colleagues think they are pretty good policy goals, but they have nothing to do with the tragic murder of this young woman. If we are going to consider this bill, we must have a chance to offer amendments to fix a few of these problems and assure the bill would accomplish its goal. Nomination of Pamela Jo Bondi Mr. President, this week the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a confirmation hearing for Pam Bondi--President-elect Trump's choice for Attorney General. I appreciated meeting with Ms. Bondi last week to discuss issues of great importance to the American people. She is impressive. She is clearly a professional, a trusted attorney, and has an amazing background. I appreciated meeting with her. The significance of the Attorney General cannot be overstated. The Department of Justice is responsible for safeguarding civil rights and liberties, promoting public safety, and ensuring economic opportunity and fairness. An independent Attorney General is essential. The Justice Department leader must be loyal to the Constitution above all else-- including the President. But during his first term, then-President Trump used the Department of Justice as his personal attorneys. He tried to thwart the Mueller investigation, protect political allies, and even overturn the result of the 2020 Presidential election. Unfortunately, Mr. Trump has pledged that during his second term he will weaponize the Justice Department to seek revenge on his political enemies. The President-elect has made it clear that he values one thing above all else in an Attorney General: loyalty. I have no reason to believe President-elect Trump has changed his litmus test for Attorney General or his views on how the Justice Department should operate. In fact, I fear that he found someone who can pass his loyalty test. We will see at the hearing. The obvious concern with Ms. Bondi is whether she will follow the bipartisan tradition of the post-Watergate era and oversee an independent Department of Justice that upholds the rule of law. Ms. Bondi is one of four personal lawyers to President-elect Trump whom he has already selected for Department of Justice positions. She was a leader in an effort to overturn the 2020 election; she has echoed the President's calls for prosecuting his political opponents; and she has a troubling history of unflinching loyalty to the President-elect. In addition, she has a record of hostility to fundamental civil rights, including reproductive rights, voting rights, and LGBTQ rights. Every President has the right to nominate individuals to serve in key Cabinet positions. However, the Senate has the constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on these nominations. This week's hearing will provide an opportunity to learn more about her, her nomination, and her vision. The American people deserve an Attorney General who will protect their fundamental rights, demonstrate independence and integrity, and remain faithful to the Constitution, the country, and the rule of law. I yield the floor. (Mr. BUDD assumed the Chair.) The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). The Senator from Massachusetts. TikTok Ban Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise today to address the profound economic, social, and political importance of TikTok's creators and the serious consequences of a nationwide TikTok ban. When the Senate passed legislation last year authorizing a ban on TikTok, it was bundled with essential foreign aid measures. Critically, the Senate never held a direct vote on the TikTok ban itself. This rushed process left many of my colleagues with the impression that ByteDance, TikTok's parent company, would divest from the platform, rendering the ban unnecessary, as its proponents had suggested. Back in April, I took to this Chamber floor to warn that such an approach was ill-considered. Today, with TikTok on the brink of being banned in the United States, my concerns have become a reality because what we are learning is that the TikTok law is indeed a TikTok ban. As the January 19 deadline approaches, TikTok creators and users across the Nation are understandably alarmed. They are uncertain about the future of the platform, their accounts, and the vibrant online communities they have cultivated. Supporters of the law have often dismissed TikTok as trivial, characterizing it as a platform dominated by juvenile dance videos and seemingly inconsequential content. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. TikTok, like all social media platforms, has flaws, but TikTok is also critical for millions of creators to earn a living, for young people to express themselves, and for Americans of all ages to foster community, share a laugh, and learn something new. Yes, sometimes these laughs come from the shared experience of attempting to learn and recreate a funny dance video, but just as often, TikTok provides a space for meaningful political conversations on everything from gun violence to climate change. Most recently, TikTok users have been sharing harrowing videos of the devastating wildfires that have destroyed thousands of homes in California. These personal videos have provided a firsthand account of the tragedy, creating a virtual gathering space for shared stories, mutual support, and urgent calls for assistance to this climate change- created catastrophe. Over the past 24 hours, I have received millions of views on my TikTok videos advocating for an end to the ban. One of these videos has over 20,000 comments and counting. That is tens of thousands of users reaching out to make their voices heard. I have been tagged in hundreds of stories over the past 24 hours as TikTok users have posted short videos explaining why TikTok is important for their lives. Meredith Lynch, a writer and comedian from my home State of Massachusetts, currently re

View original source →