Edward J. Markey
Senator for Massachusetts · Democratic · United States
“Madam President, reserving the right to object, though this bill is primarily focused on addressing bycatch in the Northern Pacific fisheries, Alaska, we still have questions in Massachusetts about how this bill will affect fisheries that expand beyond the Northern Pacific.”
Senate23 September 2026Source ↗
“But since this bill includes language that would direct new regulations across fisheries, I owe it to my constituents in Massachusetts to talk directly with the fishermen and fishing organizations in Massachusetts that could be affected by any changes, and they will need the time just to make sure any modifications that are needed would b…”
Senate23 September 2026Source ↗
“I support the establishment of a fund for bycatch mitigation and habitat protection, as well as for the reauthorization of the Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program. All of that, I think, we can agree on.”
Senate23 September 2026Source ↗
“Reducing bycatch is an important issue in Alaska and in Massachusetts as well, and it is very much worth pursuing, so I hope to continue to work on this topic with my colleague. It is a very important subject.”
Senate23 September 2026Source ↗
“They are willing to start talking right now, to work on this issue with Senator Sullivan's staff in ensuring that we hear all of the concerns that come from the fishing communities in Massachusetts but then to come to the table to try to resolve any differences and to ultimately produce legislation.”
Senate23 September 2026Source ↗
“Mr. President, the objection we just heard is exactly why this law to protect Haiti TPS is necessary, and I am incredibly disappointed in my Republican colleagues for turning their backs on the Haitian TPS community in this dire time.”
Senate22 July 2026Source ↗
The complete record
229 held · 99 searchable for Edward J. Markey. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 2.
This is not an official version of US Congress proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one US Congress publishes.
“So if you increase the efficiency by a third in air conditioners, you are dramatically reducing the need to have to build more electrical generating facilities in the country. Or maybe there is more electricity left over for the AI industry if you are working in a way that is trying to maximize American ingenuity. That is who we are. We make things that are smarter. Now, a lot of people--I would say the natural gas and oil industry at the top of the list--they don't want there to be progress. Why is that? Because the less efficient something is, the more energy, the more electricity that has to be consumed. That is their profit. But what does it do? It says to the consumer: You have to pay more for more electricity.”
Senate30 April 2025Source ↗
“And that law ultimately did pass, and it covered 13 major appliances-- kitchen refrigerators, dryers, air conditioners, and, yes, commercial refrigerators. And since then, the number of appliances has more than quadrupled. Here is the way you should think about it. We need big electrical generating facilities all across the country. Everyone knows right now that AI is now going to be a huge drain on all of the electricity that we have in our country. So how do we handle that problem? Well, one of the ways of handling that problem is to say that refrigerators have to be more efficient in the amount of electricity which they consume. Light bulbs have to be more efficient. Air conditioning has to be more efficient. For example, in Texas, in the summer, 80 percent of peak demand for electricity is air conditioning.”
Senate30 April 2025Source ↗
“Pick that one. Donald Trump's ridiculous culture war against energy-efficient appliances is a war against saving families money. The more efficient the appliance, the less money people pay in their electricity bill. The fact is that Federal appliance efficiency standards are one of the most successful climate and consumer savings programs in American history. And these standards have been around for decades. Back in 1987, I wrote the law. I am the author of the law that gave the Department of Energy the authority to set binding energy standards for appliances in America, which are supposed to be updated every 6 years. That is my law. It was signed into law as the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act. Now, I am going to be honest with you, Ronald Reagan vetoed it the first time because the oil and gas industry wanted him to veto it.”
Senate30 April 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, I am here today to defend the standards for our appliances that save energy, that cut climate emissions. They reduce costs for American families and businesses. Yet Trump and his Republican allies are attacking these commonsense appliance efficiency standards. This morning's vote overturned the Department of Energy's updated energy labeling rule that would have made it easier for appliance manufacturers to test, to certify, and to label their products in a way that consumers can understand. Energy labels are like food nutrition labels but for your electricity bill. They empower consumers to choose cheaper, more efficient appliances. They drive competition. They create certainty. They help the American people make informed choices and avoid confusion. The rule that Republicans overturned was not a ban. It was not a mandate.”
Senate30 April 2025Source ↗
“It begins with small concessions, subtle pressures, and self-censorship born of fear. But it always ends the same way: with a citizenry less informed, a democracy less vibrant, and a government less accountable. We cannot allow that to happen in the United States of America. We must remember that freedom of the press is not a partisan issue; it is an American issue. And we must have--and always have to have--the courage to stand up, to speak out, and to say: In this country, no President will dictate the truth. That is the promise of the First Amendment. That is the promise of our democracy. And that is the promise that we must keep. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.”
Senate29 April 2025Source ↗
“This is how modern censorship creeps into newsrooms. It doesn't require book burning or secret raids. It requires weaponizing existing government authority to pressure the multinational corporations with diverse financial interests that run storied programs like ``60 Minutes.'' This is a five-alarm fire for democracy. The free press is not just another stakeholder in our public discourse; it is the check on power. And when government officials use their power to intimidate the press, to manipulate newsrooms, and silence dissent, they are not just committing an ethical breach; they are committing an assault upon the First Amendment. So let me be absolutely clear: The FCC should never condition a merger on favorable news coverage. History teaches us that censorship rarely begins with overt tyranny.”
Senate29 April 2025Source ↗
“They send a signal: Criticize us, and you will face not just public smears but potential legal jeopardy. The goal is clear. Trump and his allies want to turn the hard- hitting, fact-intensive journalism at ``60 Minutes'' into ``FOX and Friends,'' and at the same time, as Trump and his allies have unleashed a torrent of attacks against ``60 Minutes,'' CBS's parent company, Paramount, has been seeking regulatory approval from the FCC for an $8 billion merger. Although this deal has serious implications for the entertainment industry, Trump and his right-wing allies instead viewed it as a point of leverage against the news media. For months, the Trump FCC has made clear that favorable merger treatment will come at a cost: favorable coverage or, more precisely, less critical coverage of Donald Trump.”
Senate29 April 2025Source ↗
“He then told FCC Chairman Brendan Carr to ``impose the maximum fines and punishment on CBS.'' Earlier in February, Trump called for ``60 Minutes'' to be ``terminated.'' Around the same time, Elon Musk got in on the action. Just a few days before Vice President Vance traveled to Germany to accuse Europe of censoring conservatives, Musk called ``60 Minutes'' the ``biggest liars in the world'' and said its journalists ``deserve a long prison sentence.'' So let me repeat that. The richest man in the world, with limitless authority over the Federal Government, said that ``60 Minutes'' journalists ``deserve a long prison sentence'' over their editorial decision making. That is a terrifying statement. These comments aren't idle threats. They create an environment of intimidation and fear.”
Senate29 April 2025Source ↗
“He has called journalists the ``enemy of the people.'' He has used his platform, Truth Social, to attack reporters, to smear respected news organizations, and to incite harassment and threats against those who dare to report the truth. But recently, we have witnessed something even more dangerous, the merging of Trump's personal vendettas with the official powers of the government. So let's start with the facts. Trump and his allies' hatred for CBS and ``60 Minutes'' is no secret. Trump has repeatedly attacked ``60 Minutes'' on his Truth Social account. Just 2 weeks ago, for example, he said that CBS should lose its license over its reporting--even though CBS, as a network, doesn't have a license.”
Senate29 April 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a regime of censorship that is increasing by the day. It is the story of Donald Trump's relentless attacks on CBS and its flagship news program, ``60 Minutes.'' It is the story of how the Federal Communications Commission, an Agency with a storied history of protecting free speech--how it has been weaponized to pressure journalists to soften their coverage of President Trump. It is a story of a campaign to turn our free press into a State-run media echo chamber, and make no mistake, it is a story that should alarm every single American, Democrat, and Republican alike. Since leaving office and even before, Donald Trump has waged a nonstop war on the free press.”
Senate29 April 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.”
Senate29 April 2025Source ↗
“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.”
Senate9 April 2025Source ↗
“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.”
Senate9 April 2025Source ↗
“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.”
Senate9 April 2025Source ↗
“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.”
Senate9 April 2025Source ↗
“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.”
Senate9 April 2025Source ↗
“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.”
Senate9 April 2025Source ↗
“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.”
Senate9 April 2025Source ↗
“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.”
Senate9 April 2025Source ↗
“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.”
Senate9 April 2025Source ↗
“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.”
Senate9 April 2025Source ↗
“If my colleagues truly believe that it is all in jest, then let's put this to the test. Let's pass the resolution now because if they won't, the cost will be nothing less than the future of our Republic. And that is not a joke. With that, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 154, which is at the desk; further I ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.”
Senate3 April 2025Source ↗
“There is nothing humorous about Members of Congress excusing, enabling, and covering for a man who has already demonstrated his willingness to subvert democracy for his own personal gain. So, at this moment, I will ask the Senate to take up and pass by unanimous consent my resolution making clear what should already be obvious: That under the 22nd and 12th Amendments to the Constitution, Donald Trump is ineligible in any future election to be elected as Vice President or President of the United States or to serve as President beyond the conclusion of his current term. This resolution is incredibly simple. It says that ``the Twelfth amendment to the Constitution States that `No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States'. . . .”
Senate3 April 2025Source ↗
“What we are witnessing is the continued erosion of constitutional order, met not with outrage from Republicans but with shrugs and chuckles and excuses. And those who claimed he was joking before now claim he is joking still after he says he is not. That is in violation of his own explicit statement that he is telling the truth. They are not just enabling a man's delusions of infinite power; they are setting the stage for something far more dangerous: The normalization of sedition. Let me say this plainly: There is nothing funny about sedition. There is nothing amusing about a former President who incited an attack on this Capitol now openly fantasizing about defying the Constitution to remain in office.”
Senate3 April 2025Source ↗
“The 12th Amendment makes clear that no one who is constitutionally ineligible to serve as President may be elected as Vice President, closing the door on any scheme where a President resigns to elevate an unelected successor. The law is settled. The case is closed. The reason we have these protections is simple: America is a republic, not a monarchy. The people's power is enshrined in the peaceful transition of leadership. George Washington set the precedent of serving only two terms, and after Franklin Roosevelt's unprecedented four terms, both parties, Democrat and Republican, came together to enshrine term limits into law--the George Washington tradition into law. Every President since, Democrats and Republicans alike, has respected this safeguard until right now.”
Senate3 April 2025Source ↗
“It is time all of us as a nation to rise above partisan interests and defend what makes us strong; our commitment to the Constitution, to the independence of the judiciary, and to the rule of law. I urge my colleagues--all of my colleagues--and every American to stand with me in defending these sacred institutions, not for our political health but for the health of our democracy itself.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“I will conclude with this: The attacks on our judiciary, the calls for the impeachment of judges, and the attempts to intimidate and retaliate against lawyers who dare to stand in defense of the Constitution are not just an assault on individuals, they are an assault on the very foundations of our democracy. The courts are not pawns in a political game. The rule of law is not up for negotiation. If we allow this dangerous precedent to take root, if we tolerate threats against judges and lawyers fulfilling their constitutional duties, we set the stage for the erosion of the checks and balances that have safeguarded our Nation for over two centuries. This is not about protecting one man. This is about protecting the principles that ensure justice and fairness for all Americans.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“So with Donald Trump coming after lawyers and law firms, it is gut- check time for law firms in our country, especially the big law firms that the President has targeted for revenge and retribution because of their lawyers daring to do their jobs and representing clients in cases against him. I commend those firms like WilmerHale, like Jenner & Block, who are standing up, who are fighting back. And we need all law firms to stand up to this administration and to continue to stand up for the rule of law. And those that don't, especially those that seek to appease and accommodate the President out of fear their bottom line will suffer-- grave risk, grave harm to our liberties will, in fact, depend upon the lawyers who take difficult and unpopular cases, often against the government, and zealously represent their clients in those matters.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“Marshals Service data showed a tripling of hostile threats and communications directed at judges over the previous decade. Recently, judges have also experienced the swatting of their homes, the delivery of pizzas to their homes--actions intended to send a message: We know where you and your family live, where your children are. So reach the result which we want. Be afraid, be very afraid. This is wrong. Very wrong. It is dangerous. It is intended to pressure judges in their decision-making that puts lives at risk. It deserves the strongest possible across-the-board condemnation by all Senators and all Americans.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“They are moving swiftly to hear cases and, for now, preventing some of the most egregiously unlawful Trump policies from taking effect: revoking birthright citizenship, blocked; freezing all Federal funding, blocked; pulling down public health websites, blocked; capping funding for critical health research at the National Institutes of Health, blocked; denying gender-affirming healthcare to transgender youth, blocked; allowing Musk unbridled access to Social Security data, blocked; clawing back funds appropriated by Congress and obligated to my National Climate Bank, blocked by a Federal district court judge. And the list goes on and on and on--blocked, blocked, blocked, blocked. In these cases, like any others, if the losing party disagrees with the judge's decision on what the law is, they can appeal it.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“Madison is to ``say what the law is''--to say what is constitutional--and that is precisely what the courts have been doing. Since retaking office, Donald Trump has issued a series of Executive orders that are blatantly, patently, and obviously unconstitutional and illegal. Trump's arrogant belief that he can supersede the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress with an Executive order has spawned more than 100 lawsuits against his administration. Federal judges across the country, judges appointed by Democrat and Republican Presidents alike, including Donald Trump himself, are doing the same job that judges have done in our country for centuries. They are interpreting statutes, making legal determinations, and upholding the Constitution of the United States.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“I come to the Senate floor today to condemn this dangerous and un- American onslaught against the judiciary and legal profession and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to speak out against it. Federal judges confirmed by the Senate and given life terms under the Constitution during good behavior are not like contestants on ``The Apprentice.'' You don't get to fire them because you don't like the way they are doing their job. The President and his acolytes don't seem to understand this. With each call to impeach judges, they disregard and disrespect the Constitution; its separation of powers; its checks and balances; and its establishment of three coequal branches of government--one of which is a judiciary whose principal job, as the Supreme Court explained more than 200 years ago in Marbury v.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“American workers and American taxpayers. They are the ones who are going to pay the price. Federal Judges Mr. President, I rise tonight to speak about the outrageous calls we have been hearing to impeach Federal judges who have ruled against Donald Trump. That is right. Donald Trump and his extremist MAGA supporters think that if a Federal judge dares to rule against the President, that judge should be impeached. Recently, Trump tweeted that Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge of the Federal district court here in Washington, DC, should be impeached because he ruled against Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador without any due process.”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, I thank Senator Kaine for his leadership on this issue. President Trump's new tariffs are not ``Liberation Day''; they are ``Obliteration Day.'' They are going to be remembered as something that raised taxes on every American consumer, had foreign countries then attack businesses all across our Nation, all without a plan from President Trump to have an end game. President Trump is just making this up, and we are going to have to wait to see how he responds when Europe attacks us, when Canada attacks us, when Asian countries now attack us. He is inviting an attack upon the American economy even as American consumers have to pay higher taxes. So we are just at the dawn of the equivalent of an all-out war--trade war--with every other country in the world. And who is going to pay the price?”
Senate2 April 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Shriya Pai, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the year.”
Senate20 February 2025Source ↗
“I urge an aye vote.”
Senate20 February 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 911 and ask that it be reported by number.”
Senate20 February 2025Source ↗
“This is the time. This is the place. We must wage this battle on behalf of the coming generations or else the devastation will become catastrophically unimaginable. So let's have this fight this year about our future. I think that is the least we owe to the young people in our country. I yield the floor.”
Senate20 February 2025Source ↗
“So my goal is to try to protect that SBA that we have all known on a bipartisan basis for generations--to just protect it from this storm of partisanship that is taking over our country, and on that basis, I recommend a ``no'' vote.”
Senate13 February 2025Source ↗
“We need to listen to the people on the frontlines: the health providers who have dedicated their lives to serving their patients; the researchers, who have committed to finding lifesaving treatments and cures; and the educators who care for our Nation's children each and every day. They are all saying no to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. He is unqualified, and his confirmation would be dangerous to the health of our Nation. With that, I yield the floor.”
Senate12 February 2025Source ↗
“We need to say no to the nomination of Russell Vought tonight; no to the illegal, unconstitutional Muskocracy; and no to the costly, sick, or unhealthy future that Donald Trump is creating. I urge all Members to vote no on Russell Vought as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.”
Senate5 February 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bianca Routt, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day.”
Senate30 January 2025Source ↗
“I yield the floor, and I thank the Presiding Officer for his indulgence, and I thank the Senator from Delaware for his indulgence as well.”
Senate30 January 2025Source ↗
“Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.”
Senate30 January 2025Source ↗
“So I very, very strongly recommend to this body that we vote no and tell the President to come back with someone who is worthy of this most important of all positions in his Cabinet. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.”
Senate24 January 2025Source ↗
“But I tell you there is going to be real harm, and my hope is that I can partner with President-elect Trump to try to find a resolution of this issue so that we do it with the information that, right now, we do not have to take such an action. I yield the floor.”
Senate15 January 2025Source ↗
“So to the millions of creators who have bravely shared their stories and explained why TikTok is important to them, I hear you, I am listening, and I encourage my colleagues to listen as well and to give a short reprieve to TikTok's death sentence. TikTok is far too important to let it die like this on Sunday without having given the extra time which is needed--time for President-elect Trump, time for everyone to think about what an alternative pathway could be to letting TikTok die. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 103, introduced earlier today; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.”
Senate15 January 2025Source ↗
“We need economic justice. We need climate justice. We need wealthy polluters to pay, especially jet-setting billionaires who are polluting right now. And we need a system that works for the American people, not for the billionaire excess that the Republican Party is going to bring out to the Senate floor. I yield to my friend from Rhode Island, a great leader, Senator Whitehouse.”
Senate15 January 2025Source ↗
“And the Surgeon General tells us that there is a mental health crisis amongst young people in our country. This doesn't solve the problem. If we are going to deal with it, let's deal with it, but let's step back and understand that it is not just a TikTok issue; it is social media in general. A TikTok ban would impose serious consequences on millions of Americans who depend upon the app for social connections and for their economic livelihood. We cannot allow this to happen. I will urge the U.S. Senate to adopt my legislation to give the whole process an additional 270 days for us to debate it in a way in which we did not debate it last year on the Senate floor. I yield the floor.”
Senate13 January 2025Source ↗