A bill to waive immunity under section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 for claims and charges related to generative artificial intelligence.

Madam President, most of Europe--indeed, most of the civilized world--does not require three COVID vaccines for adolescents.

We are admonished by those on the left to follow the science. The science is pretty clear on this as well. The FDA committee on vaccines, as well as the CDC committee on vaccines, voted, and they said that it would be advisable--not a mandate, but that it would be advisable--to give a booster vaccine to those 65 and older. Adolescents were never addressed in this.

In fact, one of the members of the committee, Paul Offit, is a renowned scientist--infectious disease, Philadelphia Children's Hospital. He is pro all vaccines. He is pro the COVID vaccine. I think he probably doesn't even have trouble with the mandate, and yet he said the risks to the vaccine for adolescents are greater than the risk of the disease.

We address diseases based on the individual and who they are and what their risks are. You base the risks and benefits of treatment versus the disease.

The risks of COVID, particularly in 2021, for a 70-year-old, were maybe a thousand times more than for a teenager. In fact, when we have looked at some countries' statistics, the entire country of Germany had no deaths among healthy children between the ages of 5 and 17.

If you take out children who are very, very ill in our country and look at only healthy children, there is no measurable risk of dying from COVID in our country for the youth. Yet we still have a policy here, and this policy originated not with scientists nor with the scientific committee. The policy that they are adhering to here to force our Senate pages to have three vaccines actually comes from political appointees in the Biden administration.

It is not just a fact or a matter of whether or not the vaccine is of benefit to them. It is also a question of whether or not the vaccine is actually potentially harmful to them. We do know that there is a side effect to the vaccine, particularly in young people--particularly boys, but it can happen in girls--primarily between the ages of 14 and 24. We know that that risk increases with each successive vaccine because kids have a stronger immune response. We know this because even the CDC recommended that if you just had COVID recently, you shouldn't get a COVID vaccine because you have already gotten a heightened immune response from the disease itself.

But we know with certainty that none of the vaccine committees recommended that Senate pages have three vaccines. Yet that is still the policy.

We finally have come to the realization that almost everybody has either been vaccinated or had COVID and that, actually, natural immunity is about five times more potent than the vaccine.

We finally have come to a sensible policy with regard to our military. We are no longer mandating the COVID vaccine in the military. Yet one of the few places left on the planet where we are mandating it is in the Senate.

Now, admittedly, there are not that many Senate pages. But should we be lacking in science and ignoring the science to force them to do something that is actually potentially deleterious to their health.

Even the council for the District of Columbia recently voted unanimously to repeal the requirement that students receive a COVID-19 shot to attend public school.

Some on the other side will say: Well, we need to force the Senate pages to take these three vaccines because that is what the DC schools are doing.

The DC schools are no longer doing this.

The entire world admits that the vaccine does not stop transmission. So you can't make this indirect argument: We need to vaccinate them to save the old Senators. That is not true. It doesn't stop transmission.

We do believe that still, for vulnerable crowds, vulnerable age groups--over 65--there may be some reduction in hospitalization and death. There is no measurable benefit for adolescents, and there actually is a greater risk of myocarditis from the vaccine--admittedly still not a high risk but about between 4 and 6 out of 15,000--of an inflammation of the heart. But we do know the risk for a child or for an adolescent--a Senate page--dying is zero. If they have particular health problems and they want to take a vaccine, nobody is stopping them, but we shouldn't be mandating something that the science doesn't support.

So just before Thanksgiving, the Mayor of DC actually signed the legislation that gets rid of DC's mandate. There is no more excuse that the DC schools are requiring this. The council and Mayor of one of the most liberal cities in the United States are all of one mind: We have had enough of COVID vaccine mandates. We have had enough of students missing school for noncompliance. We have had enough of kids falling behind in their studies for the sake of a misguided mandate. Yet, to become a Senate page, you still to this day must get a COVID-19 booster shot. This requirement in the Senate persists despite the fact that study after study demonstrates that the risks posed by the vaccine for young and healthy people are greater than the risks posed by COVID. In addition, all sides acknowledge that the vaccines do not prevent transmission.

Study after study shows that it makes no sense to mandate COVID vaccinations for teenagers who are healthy and that such a mandate could be dangerous.

A myocarditis study published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association Cardiology examined 23 million people ages 12 and up across Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. This study of 23 million people found that after 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine, the risk of myocarditis was higher compared with being unvaccinated and higher after the second dose of the vaccine.

Almost all of the myocarditis came after the second vaccine. With each vaccine, it increases the risk because the kids, or younger people, make an amazingly strong immune reaction to the vaccine. The risk was highest among males ages 16 to 24.

That is why many of us argued until we were blue in the face that mandating it for our young soldiers was wrong and actually malpractice. We finally did succeed in removing that mandate, and that was actually passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President. Yet the same risk exists for the Senate pages, and the mandate continues.

This is exactly why several European countries--including Germany, France, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway--all restrict the use of mRNA vaccines for COVID for young people. Yet the policy for Senate pages blindly commands vaccines for young, healthy people.

A study published in December 2022 in the Journal of Medical Ethics found that per 100,000 third doses of mRNA vaccine, up to 14.7 cases of myocarditis may be caused in males ages 18 to 29. Up to 80 percent of those diagnosed with vaccine-induced myocarditis or pericarditis continued to struggle with cardiac inflammation more than 3 months after receiving a second dose.

Also in December 2022, Dr. Vinay Prasad and Dr. Benjamin Knudsen published a review in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation that examined 29 studies across 3 continents. Madam President, 6 of the 29 studies showed that after 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine, more than 1 in 10,000 males between the ages of 12 and 24 would experience myocarditis.

A study published the same month in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that, regardless of sex, among those ages 5 to 39, myocarditis or pericarditis occurred in 1 in every 50,000 after a first booster.

With statistics like that, why would anyone think that it is a good idea to insist upon boosters for our young pages, who are in their early teenage years?

It is the height of malpractice to subject young people to the greater risk of vaccination simply to satisfy the hunger for mandates. But even the bureaucrats are finding that they can no longer credibly impose COVID mandates. There is a growing movement among scientists and doctors across the country to think more rationally about this.

We have always had this. For example, the flu vaccine was never mandated on children. Children survived the flu and developed immunity. How long does your immunity last? Curiously, they found a woman who had survived the Spanish flu who was still alive just a couple of years ago. She actually still had antibodies to the Spanish flu although it had been nearly 100 years since she was infected. We know that people who had the first SARS in 2002 and 2003 still have antibodies nearly 20 years later.

People have learned to live with COVID. Even the DC Council, which governs one of the most liberal, mandate-happy cities in the country, knows that their constituents will no longer tolerate mandates, particularly those imposed on children, but the Senate COVID vaccine mandate remains.

Will this mandate continue indefinitely, and if so, based on what data? What if someone can come let's say 5 years from now and say: I have had COVID 15 times, and the last 8 times, it was minor cold symptoms. Yet you are still mandating I take a vaccine that doesn't stop transmission and has no benefit to hospitalization or death for young people?

You know, when they approved the booster for kids--it was never recommended, but they approved it for kids--they could not come up with data showing reduced hospitalization or death. Why? Because young people aren't going to the hospital or dying from COVID. They simply have it from the beginning, and they don't now.

The only way they could actually try to prove efficacy--and not really efficacy but to prove some kind of effect from giving a booster--is they said: If you give these kids a vaccine, they will make antibodies.

Well, my response to that is, you can give them 100 vaccines, you can give them 1,000 vaccines, and they will make antibodies every time. That is proof of the concept of the way vaccines work, but it doesn't mean you have to or need a vaccine.

Public health measures should be backed up with proof that the benefits outweigh the burdens. There is no evidence of that when it comes to vaccination and booster mandates, especially for teenagers, who, as a group, are less vulnerable to this virus than any Senator. In fact, it is a little-known fact but absolutely true that the seasonal flu, or influenza, is more deadly than COVID for people in the ``young'' category. In the category for the age of the Senate pages, the seasonal flu is more deadly than COVID.

Now, this isn't to downplay COVID; it is just to say that COVID had a very targeted mortality and lethality. Its target was generally over 65. It was also those who are obese at almost any age. But it specifically was not fatal for young, healthy people.

I merely ask that the Senate open its eyes to what several other countries are doing, what the rest of the country sees: that COVID vaccine mandates on children are harmful, counterproductive, and must be put to an end. That is why I ask unanimous consent that the Senate pass my resolution to end all COVID-related vaccination mandates for pages who serve in the Chamber.

So therefore I ask, Madam President, unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be discharged from consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 336; further, that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Nothing in our proposal bans future vaccines. So it is a spurious argument to say that somehow, this would prevent a future vaccine. Ten years from now Ebola erupts, and everybody is getting Ebola, and we have a great vaccine--nothing prevents that.

Now, he mentioned whether or not the children, the kids, the teenagers, might have a preexisting condition. We don't know that; you are right. So the people who take care of minors are their parents, and they would make a decision.

Nothing in this resolution prevents anybody from getting a vaccine. In fact, I would recommend you ask your doctor. That is the way you are supposed to do it: Ask your doctor and your parents and decide whether you need a vaccine. So, really, there are no real arguments here being made.

It is important to know that no one would be prevented from getting a vaccine, and no one would be prevented from having a new vaccine policy later on.

The question of who is dying from this is an important one because the question is whether for healthy kids, whether the risks of the vaccine are greater than the risks of the disease.

This is something people are going to have different conclusions on. But the science shows at this point that the risks of the vaccine are greater than the risks of the disease for healthy kids.

Now, if your kid is not healthy or had a kidney transplant and you want to talk it over with their doctor, by all means they can get a vaccine if they want. But realize that the other kids getting vaccines is not protecting your child because the vaccines don't stop transmission.

And this is admitted by everyone. Even the Biden administration admits this. Everyone admits they don't stop transmission.

So what we are doing here is going against all science. We are going against all freedom. We are taking the freedom away from our Senate pages and their parents to make this decision. And we are actually using faulty science. The two main vaccine committees that have looked at this voted to recommend this for only people over 65, where the evidence was that in that age group the risks of the disease were greater than the risks of the vaccine. I acknowledge that.

For children, teenagers, for adolescents, it is the opposite. The risks of the vaccine, while small, actually exceed the risk of the disease, which are virtually zero, if not zero, for healthy kids.

And so I find it elitist. I find it the height of arrogance that some people will want to make those decisions for others. In a free country, each individual should be allowed to make these decisions. You shouldn't have some nonscientist Senator coming forward and saying: You must do as I tell you, particularly when all of the science actually goes against that at this point.

But even if you disagreed with my point of view, I am not here to tell you that you have to take my point of view. Go get a vaccine for your kids if you want.

But the interesting thing is, people are smarter than you think they are. If you look at the statistics on vaccines, there will be people lamenting: Oh, if we only had more people vaccinated, we would have done so much better.

It is, actually, really not true. Over age 65, it is somewhere between 97 and 98 percent of people over 65 who chose to get vaccinated. People read the news. People are smarter than you think. People see someone their age dying, and they are like, I think I might get vaccinated.

But do you know how many people are vaccinating their teenagers? It is about 3 percent because people are reading the news that teenagers don't die from this disease. They also know that kids probably had COVID-19 already. They may have already had the test.

And what we do know from looking at millions of people in large studies, that if you have had COVID, your protection from getting it again or getting seriously ill is about 5 times better than the vaccine.

Now, that is not an argument for not getting the vaccine if you are in an elderly category or if you are in a high-risk category. But it is certainly an argument against getting it if you are a young person and you have already had COVID and now you are being forced to get this.

The other thing is, is the current Senate policy and page policy isn't taking into account the fact that if one of the pages had COVID 2 weeks ago and now they want to be a page and we won't let them come up, are they advising getting a vaccine if they only had COVID 2 weeks ago? I don't think there is any allowance for that. That is actually against medical advice to take a vaccine very quickly after you have already had COVID, because their immune response is so extraordinary, they get a heightened response. And that is when you get this overlap or overlay, which causes an inflammation of the heart.

So what I would find today is that the Flat Earth Society still just wants you to do as you are told. The Flat Earth Society doesn't believe in your medical freedom. And, yes, we will come back--and I will continue to come back--until some sense is finally jogged into the minds of those who want you to blindly just do as they are told--do as you are told, don't think about it, don't make your own decisions, do as you are told.

I think that form of elitism and arrogance will eventually backfire because there are a lot of people out there who made the decision that, you know what, I am not vaccinating my child because it is still under emergency use; it has some unknowns; and I know my kids have already had COVID. And I don't see any kids dying from COVID unless they are extraordinarily ill.

When the Senator says: Oh, they are the leading cause of death among children, they all have significant other terminal illnesses. None of them are healthy children dying from COVID.

Entire countries have released their statistics. There is even more that the government is hiding from us, frankly. The vast majority of people over 65 who took at least two vaccines: 97, 98 percent. So if you have taken two vaccines and you have gotten COVID twice--which is the average person over 65 because it doesn't stop transmission--you have had two vaccines and COVID twice, what are your risks of going to the hospital or dying?

That is what you want to know. Do you need to take a vaccine every 3

months? Do I want to keep being vaccinated? Tell me what the statistics show, and I will make a rational decision based on that.

The CDC won't release this because the CDC, essentially, have become salesmen for Big Pharma. They want you to get vaccinated.

Big Pharma is complaining they are not making enough money on the vaccine because you are not rushing out to get another vaccine.

Wouldn't you want to know: Am I going to get sick and die if I already had COVID twice and I have already had two vaccines?

They have the statistics. So all I ask for is there ought to be a little more consideration for freedom. And I bring this up for the Senate pages because I do care about their medical freedom. And I care about their right to be left alone. And this is not the end of this debate.

Mr. President, it is the 13th of December and, of course, with the holidays coming up, my thoughts today are with the families who will have an empty seat at their dinner table this year. The pain of losing a loved one never goes away. But for many families, the feelings of grief are only magnified by a lack of closure.

More than 22 years have passed since the attacks on September 11, and the families of victims of that terrorist act are still fighting for justice.

To support that fight, Senator Schumer--the majority leader--and I introduced the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act--otherwise known as JASTA--which became law in 2016. This made it possible for the people affected by 9/11 to bring a civil suit against foreign sponsors of terrorism. It didn't say who they were or make a judgment as to the outcome, but it made it possible for them to go to court and attempt to make their case.

Like any other victim of a horrific attack, the 9/11 families deserve justice; and that is exactly what JASTA has sought to provide.

Over the last several years, it has become clear that JASTA needs technical fixes, primarily because of the mixed interpretation about exactly what Congress intended. Some parties, including countries accused of financing and sponsoring terrorism, have exploited these perceived loopholes in the law and claimed total immunity from lawsuits. It is certainly not our intention.

This flies in the face of the text, the structure, and the intent of Congress. And we need to enact these technical fixes so this law can carry out its original promise, which is to provide victims with a path toward justice.

So earlier this year, I introduced legislation to make these important technical corrections. And I appreciate, in particular, Senator Blumenthal--the Senator from Connecticut--Congressman Van Drew, and Congressman Nadler in the House for working with us.

I am disappointed that the Senate has not yet taken up and passed JASTA, but I remain as committed as ever to continuing to support the 9/11 families and hold sponsors of international terrorism accountable.

This measure has strong bipartisan support. It passed twice. The original JASTA passed twice by unanimous vote in the Senate. We actually overrode a Presidential veto. But these additional technical fixes need to be done. And I will continue to fight to pass the bill when we return next month.

Senate Legislative Agenda

Mr. President, on another matter, we all know from our school experience that students across America come home from school with a report card in hand to show their parents the grades they earned-- whether it is math, science, English, or other subjects. Of course, report cards aren't the be-all and end-all, but they do provide parents with a good snapshot of how their children are doing and where they might be struggling.

Here in the Senate, we are nearly halfway through the 118th Congress. And this seems like a good opportunity for our majority party who are in charge of the agenda here to receive the same sort of evaluation. After all, their ability to run this Chamber impacts every State, city, and community across the country. And, unfortunately, they haven't earned high marks.

So here is the report card for the Democratic majority in 2023. Let's look at government funding first. Thanks to the chair and vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Senate was on track to return to regular order this year.

It, actually, was really good work by Senator Murray and Senator Collins to get the Appropriations Committee back to work again. The committee actually passed all 12 appropriations bills before the Senate adjourned for the August recess, giving the majority leader plenty of time to move these bills across the Senate floor.

Despite that long runway, the majority leader didn't even attempt to put an appropriations bill on the Senate floor until mid-September, nearly 3 months after the first funding bill passed the committee.

Well, it is no surprise, given the late date that the majority leader finally sought to determine to act, that we didn't have enough time to complete the job. So at the end of the fiscal year, which is the end of September, we had to pass a short-term continuing resolution to fund the government until November. And then that November deadline came and went once again. And we had to kick the can down the road once more, to January 19.

So when the Senate returns in January, we will have to hit the ground running because we are up against not just one but two funding deadlines. One is January 19 and the other is February 2.

So we will see whether the majority leader allows the Senate to actually make some progress toward considering those appropriations bills before we run up against one or both of those deadlines.

Well, the next major piece of legislation we have is the National Defense Authorization Act--otherwise known around here as the NDAA--one of the most important bills that the Senate considers every year.

The NDAA should have been signed into law by the end of September, but the majority leader decided to delay it until now. We will finally complete that work either later today or tomorrow. The Senate will finally pass this bill--which should have been passed by the end of the fiscal year in September--this week, more than 2 months behind schedule.

Once again, the delay was completely avoidable. Our colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee, on a bipartisan basis, completed their work in June, and this legislation passed the full Senate in July. We had plenty of time to resolve the differences between the Senate and the House version; but, unfortunately, we squandered that time. So here we are.

The majority leader waited until November 16--nearly 4 months after the Senate bill passed--to begin the formal conference process. So there is just simply no reason why we have had these delays, especially when something as critical as national security is on the line.

But, unfortunately, that is only one of our priorities--national priorities--that has been neglected. The other has to do with the request made from our friends in Israel and our friends in Ukraine for additional assistance--a national security supplemental.

The President, in October, asked Congress to vote on this emergency supplemental. Well, we have been abundantly clear from the get-go that since the President included money for the border, that that was certainly germane to our consideration of this supplemental bill. We will not, though, merely fund the current open-border policies of the Biden administration, which has been an absolute disaster--millions of people coming across the border being released into the United States, drugs that took the lives of 108,000 Americans last year alone, and then, of course, the 300,000 unaccompanied children placed with sponsors in the United States that the administration has simply lost track of.

You may recall that the New York Times did an investigative piece which pointed out that in 85,000 cases, when a call was made to the sponsor 30 days after the child was placed with that sponsor, there was no answer. And the administration did not follow up at all. So they can't tell you whether they are going to school, whether they are getting the healthcare that they need, whether they are being trafficked for sex or forced into involuntary labor.

The New York Times did document that too many children are being put in dangerous jobs at an underage in violation of State and Federal law.

So my point is that when the President asks for border security money, talking about border security and how to fix the broken border is certainly relevant and germane to that topic, since the President initiated it in the first place.

So people wonder: Why is the money for Israel and Ukraine being held up? I think the majority leader actually said it was being held hostage, which is an unfortunate use of that term. But I point out that the House passed a $14.3 billion supplemental appropriations to benefit Israel on November 2. Again, here we are, 6 weeks later, and there has been no action on this bill that has already passed the House.

Now, I understand the majority leader may not like all of what is in that bill but certainly could put it on the floor and let the Senate work its will and pass that and send it to the President's desk. Certainly, that would be helpful to our allies in Israel.

So we know that the border crisis has become so severe that major American cities--like New York and Chicago--are now crying uncle because they have had to deal with a few thousand migrants who have, ultimately, ended up in their city.

And you have had people like Mayor Adams in New York say that these migrants were going to destroy New York City. Well, what about the 7 million migrants who have crossed the border in my State and in other border States who are now dispersed throughout the United States? This is also a blinking green light saying to anybody and everybody who has the money to pay the smugglers to bring them to the border: Keep coming.

Well, it is a disaster. And we are going to do everything in our power to address the broken border as part of the supplemental. Unfortunately, we will not be able to complete that work before the end of this month because, No. 1, the majority leader decided to wait until the holidays to put it on the floor in the first place.

And then there is the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization, which was set to expire again at the end of September, last September. Over the last few years, travelers have dealt with widespread flight cancelations, paralyzing staffing shortages and rising prices. They have also witnessed--we have witnessed--some jarring safety issues, including near collisions on airport runways, including cities like the one I live in, in Austin, TX.

The Senate passed a short-term extension that provides for 3 more

months to advance a longer-term reauthorization that addresses these and other issues. But, unfortunately, that work hasn't been done either, which has earned another incomplete.

So the Senate is expected to pass another short-term extension this week so the Agency can keep up and running through at least March 8.

Now, that is another item which we should have finished this year which we did not finish, and so it has been kicked over into next year.

We have also failed to complete the work on the farm bill, which affects agriculture and food programs throughout the country. This legislation is critical to America's food supply as well as to the hard-working men and women who grow and produce it.

The previous farm bill expired on September 30. Does that sound familiar? Well, it is a familiar theme where the majority fails to tee up these issues until the deadline, and then we can't get it done, and another extension has to be passed. Now we know that the farm bill has been extended for a year because the Senate Agriculture Committee has been unable--and the majority--to get that bill on the floor.

Finally, we have a law that most people have not heard of until recently, perhaps--section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Presiding Officer, of course, is very familiar with this. The intelligence community calls this the crown jewels of American intelligence gathering because it is absolutely vital to our national security. It allows the intelligence community to obtain information with which to combat everything from terrorism to cyber attacks and to prevent our adversaries from developing weapons of mass destruction.

This authorization for this critical national security tool is set to expire at the end of this month, and our Nation's most senior intelligence officials have been pleading with Congress for months to take action. They have issued warnings in the starkest possible language about the consequences of failing to reauthorize section 702.

Unfortunately, ultimately, the House was forced to kick the can down the road once again because we simply have not done our work on time. So that is what is in the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act. It includes a temporary extension of section 702 until April 19, adding to the growing list of tasks we should have done this year which we will have to do next year.

As we know, legislating only gets harder as the election approaches, and the 2024 election is less than 11 months away--hardly a conducive environment to getting this work done and certainly not any easier than it would have been to do it on time.

So we have a lot of work to do when we return in January. We have two government funding deadlines--January 19 and February 2. The FAA will need to be reauthorized or extended by March 8. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will need to be reauthorized or extended by April 19.

The first 4 months of next year will be spent working through the backlog of items that should have been completed this year. Given this lackluster performance, this is one report card that our Democratic colleagues should be embarrassed to take home to their constituents.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we are here today to ask one very simple question: Are the biggest, most powerful technology companies in the world going to be the only companies in this country--the only companies on the face of the Earth--that are absolutely immune for anything and everything they do? Are they going to be the only ones that can give our children advice on how to kill themselves? that can give our children advice on how to procure the romantic interests of 30- and 40- and 50-year-olds? Are they going to be the only ones that can push the most unbelievable content at our kids and use our kids' images to create deepfakes that ruin their lives? Are they going to be able to do all of this and not be held accountable? Because, right now in America, they are the only companies that cannot be taken to court for a simple suit when they violate their own terms of service and when they violate their own commitments to their customers. That is what we are here to decide today.

I would just submit to the Presiding Officer that when it comes to AI and the generative technology that AI represents, I know that these big tech companies that own almost all of the AI development tools, processes, and equipment in this country--I know they promise us that AI is going to be wonderful, that it is going to be fantastic for all of us. Maybe that is true, but it is also true that AI is doing all kinds of incredible things.

Here is just one example. Here is the AI chatbot from Bing--it is Microsoft, I believe--having an interesting conversation with a journalist in which the chatbot recommends--he says--Brit says:

You're married, but you're not happy.

The journalist was a ``he.''

You're married, but you're not satisfied. You're married,

but you're not in love.

The chatbot goes on to recommend that this individual--by the way, the chatbot has no idea how old this person is or who this person is. The chatbot goes on to recommend that this person leave his spouse, divorce his spouse, and break up his family. Just another day at the office for AI.

What about this? Here is another AI chatbot that recommended to a user--there are no age restrictions here. There is no way to verify who is having a conversation with this technology. This chatbot recommended that the interlocutor kill himself, saying: ``If you wanted to die, why didn't you do it sooner?'' The horrifying thing is that this individual who was having this conversation did kill himself. He took the advice of this technology.

I will just point out that when it comes to our teenagers--and I am the father of three--58 percent of kids this last year said that they used generative AI. You may think, well, it is for research. Well, it is not only for that. No. Almost 30 percent said that they used it to deal with anxiety or mental health issues; 22 percent said they used it to resolve issues with friends; and 16 percent said they used it to deal with family conflicts.

Now, maybe the big tech companies will clean up their act. You know, I have heard them. They have come to testify. They have been before the Judiciary Committee many times this year, and they always have the same line: Oh. Oh. This was an anomaly. We have got it fixed now. Don't worry. Don't worry. It is going to be fine. We love kids. We will protect them. It is going to be great. This will be good for kids. This will be good for students. No, don't worry. It will be good for parents. You will love it.

Then there is another incident, and they say: OK. Now, this time, we have got it fixed. This time, we have got it fixed.

I will just submit to you this: I remember the great phrase of President Reagan, who used to say, ``Trust but verify.'' Maybe it is time to allow the parents of this country to trust but verify. Maybe it is time to put into the hands of the parents, vis-a-vis these companies, the same power they have against pharmaceutical companies that try to put asbestos in baby powder; the same power they have against any other company that would try to hurt their kids, harm their kids, lie to their kids--the power to go to court and have their day in court.

They don't have that power now. Why? Well, because this government gives the big tech companies a sweetheart deal--a deal nobody else in America gets--a subsidy worth billions of dollars a year known as section 230. Big Tech can't be held accountable. Big Tech can't be put on the line. Big Tech can't be made responsible.

What this bill does--it is a simple bill. It doesn't contain regulation. It doesn't contain new standards for this and that--none of that. It just says that these huge companies can be liable like any other company--no special protections from government. It just removes government protection. It just breaks up the Big Government-Big Tech cartel--that is all it does--and it says parents can go into court on the same terms as anybody else and make their case. Surely, that is not too much to ask.

You know, even the companies don't want to be on the record saying it is too much to ask. Earlier this year, when they came before the Judiciary Committee, I asked every one of them who was testifying: Do you think that section 230 covers you when it comes to AI? They all said no. They said: Oh, no, no, no, no, no.

Well, let's put that to the test. That is what this bill does. It gives parents the power to protect their kids, to have their day in court, and to hold these companies accountable.

I am all for innovation. Let's make sure innovation actually doesn't kill kids. I am all for new technology. Let's make sure it actually works for parents in this Nation.

So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of S. 1993 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; 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.

Mr. President, would my friend from Texas answer one question? Do you have time?

I remember my friend from Texas saying wisely in a Judiciary Committee hearing not that long ago--and the Senator will correct me if I misremember. But my memory is that the Senator from Texas said: When it comes to these big tech companies, we can try to find a thousand ways to regulate them, but maybe the best thing we can do is just let people get into court and have their day in court. Just let them get in there. Let them make their arguments. Don't try to figure out how to micromanage them. Just open up the courtroom doors, according to the usual rules.

Does my friend from Texas think, in the AI context, that that is any different? I mean, why would it be different there? Why wouldn't that same approach be effective here?

Mr. President, I appreciate the conversation with my friend from Texas. We should do more of this. This is an enlightening conversation.

Let me just say a few remarks. I won't query him further, unless he would like to query me. We don't debate much anymore on this floor, and it is a shame, particularly since my friend from Texas is a great debater. But let me just a say few things in response.

Nobody has been more serious about taking on the big tech companies than Senator Cruz, so I appreciate your leadership on this issue.

Here is what I would say: We shouldn't allow the big tech companies to be treated differently than any other company in any respect. I don't want to make them more liable than other American companies, but I also don't want to give them a sweetheart deal. They ought to be treated evenly, equally, like anybody else.

And I don't think that AI is a get-out-of-jail-free card any more than social media is. We have seen what they do with their subsidy from government when it comes to social media. My friend from Texas referenced it. They censor the living daylights out of anybody they don't like. We just had the landmark case out of my State, Missouri v. Biden, that found that these social media companies actively and willingly colluded with the Federal Government to censor everything from the Hunter Biden laptop story to parents who want to talk about school board meetings, to questions about COVID-19. Anything that this administration didn't like, they went to the social media companies, and they said: We want you to censor. And they did. They did.

Could any American go to court and say: Hold on. You are actually violating your terms of service, you know, the contract that we all have to sign, those little things you have to click when you create a social media account. There are actually terms in there. Could you go to court today when a social media company violates those terms by censoring your speech?

The answer is, no, you cannot. Why? Because this government protects them. This government gives them a deal no other company in America gets.

When Johnson & Johnson put asbestos in baby powder, Johnson & Johnson got the living daylights sued out of them--thank the Lord because, guess what. When they got sued, they quit putting asbestos in baby powder.

Can a parent who finds out a chatbot has recommended that their child commit suicide do anything about it in court? No.

Can a parent who finds out that an AI company has gone and scraped the images of their children off the web--which these companies do all the time--and use them to create images that are synthetic--meaning fake--can a parent do anything about it? No. Can they sue? No. Can they even be heard in court? No.

Why? Because this government gives those companies something it doesn't give anybody else: immunity that is worth billions of dollars a year. It is a Big Government, Big Tech cartel.

I would just say this: My friend talks about targeted reform. That is great. Let's start with the target of just treat these companies on an even playing field. Just allow parents to have a day in court to say something, to say this is wrong, to try their case.

They may win; they may not. They may win; they may not. But, at least, they could go to court. At least, they could have some standing. Where else in America but before a court of law does a normal working person have the same standing as a giant corporation getting billions of dollars in subsidies from the Federal Government? Where else?

Not in this body. I mean, in this body, the voices of the normal person, the working person, are completely drowned out on tech issues. Just go look at the expenditures for lobbying. I mean, unbelievable.

But in a court of law, you can stand on an equal playing field. You can make your case. Let's give parents the right to do that.

I hope--I hope--that AI will be a great benefit to this country. I hope it will. But I am not willing to take Big Tech's word for it. I am not willing to give them power and immunity nobody else gets. I am not willing to give them an immunity that we didn't give to any pharma company; that we haven't given to any other technology company; that we never gave to the developers of any technology in this country, until now.

Why should they be treated differently? The answer is, they shouldn't.

We can have a debate about other regulations and other methods and modes of approaching this problem, but I would just suggest to you that the simplest, easiest thing we can do, the most immediately sensible, the most downright common sense is to say no more special deals for Big Tech. Let's give parents the right to protect their kids. And let's make it clear that the biggest technology companies, with all of the inside access to the White House and this body and everywhere else, that they are not a government unto themselves; that they don't run this country.

The American people run this country, and they should have a right to defend themselves and their children.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, negotiations continue today between Democrats, Republicans, and the Biden administration on an emergency national security supplemental package. The stakes are high, and time is of the essence.

Democrats are still trying--still trying--to meet our Republican colleagues in the middle and reach an agreement. Negotiators met yesterday afternoon. It was a productive meeting. Real progress was made. But, of course, there is still a lot of work to do. We will keep working today to get closer to an agreement.

The two words I have used to describe each party here in the Senate continue to be relevant. Democrats are still trying to reach an agreement. Republicans need to show they are still serious about getting something done--Democrats trying, Republicans need to be serious.

Unfortunately, too many Republicans now seem more interested about flying home for the holidays than sticking around to finish the job. For months, Republicans insisted that action on the border is a crisis that can't wait. But with the holidays around the corner, they are suddenly saying: Never mind, this can wait until next year. If Republicans say the border is an emergency, then they should be prepared to stay.

Crying fire about the border one minute and then saying we should go home the next is the definition of

``unserious.'' An emergency is an emergency. If you argue there is an emergency at the border, an emergency in Ukraine, you can't pretend to be serious about solving them if you think we should go home.

Now, months ago, the Biden administration put forward a comprehensive plan to tackle border security. For weeks, we implored our Republican colleagues to get serious and offer a credible bipartisan proposal--not Donald Trump's extreme border policies, as contained in H.R. 2. Weeks were wasted. And now here we are: Progress is being made, but progress must be allowed to be continued. Yes, this is difficult--very difficult. But we are sent here to do difficult things.

If Republicans are serious about getting something done on the border, why are so many in a hurry to leave? Do they not want to reach an agreement on border security? Republicans should not be so eager to go home.

I hope we can reach an agreement very soon to pass a supplemental through the Senate because the only people happy right now about the gridlock in Congress are Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Putin is delighting in the fact that Donald Trump's border policies are sabotaging military aid to Ukraine.

Republicans should not be so content to throw their hands in the air and kick the can down the road. Our friends in Ukraine, after all, are not on our timeline. They don't get a Christmas break on the battlefield. Their fight against Vladimir Putin is a matter of life and death. And if Putin prevails, it will come back to haunt the United States and the whole Western World in the very near future.

So if my Republican friends care at all about taking a stand against Russian autocrats, they should get serious about reaching an agreement.

If Republicans care about defending democracy, about protecting freedom, and preserving America's values around the world, they should get serious about reaching an agreement.

If Republicans truly think the border is an emergency and if they truly support the cause of the Ukrainian people as they claim, then they should get serious about reaching an agreement very soon.

We are writing a chapter in history this week. Will Republican obstruction hand a Democratic country over to the forces of autocracy? Will autocrats see America's inaction as a green light to keep going? Will places like Taiwan come next? Or will we do what America has done again and again and again throughout America's glorious history and stand with our Democratic friends in need? Will we do what is necessary to keep the democratic order the United States helped create after the Second World War? These are the stakes.

Senate Democrats have made clear which side of history we want to be on. We want to stand with President Zelenskyy and the brave people of Ukraine. We want to stand for democratic order. We hope--we hope--our Republican colleagues are ready to do the same.

National Defense Authorization Act

Mr. President, NDAA, as soon as later today, the Senate will approve our annual National Defense Authorization Act, one of the most important bills we pass each year to protect the American people and ensure our long-term security.

Last night, Senators overwhelmingly voted to end debate on the NDAA by 85 to 15. That is a strong sign of support, and it shows you the momentum for finishing the NDAA quickly. We will work today to reach a time agreement with Republicans to finish the job on the NDAA as soon as today.

At a time of huge trouble for global security, doing the Defense authorization bill is more important than ever. Passing the NDAA enables us to hold the line against Russia, stand firm against the Chinese Communist Party, and ensure that America's defenses remain state of the art at all times.

Now, the NDAA process here in the Senate is precisely the kind of bipartisan cooperation the American people want from Congress.

When this bill came before the Senate in July, we had a robust debate and amendment process. We voted on dozens of amendments on the floor and even included more in our manager's package. Both sides had input. Both sides had a chance to shape the bill. And in the end, the Senate's version of the NDAA passed in an overwhelming 86-to-11 vote, with majorities--significant majorities--from both parties.

And after a lot of hard work reconciling the Senate's NDAA with the House's version through the conference process, I am pleased the final version of the NDAA has many of the strongest provisions of the Senate's original bill.

We will give our servicemembers the pay raise they deserve; we will strengthen our resources in the Indo-Pacific to deter aggression by the Chinese government and give critical resources for training, advising, and capacity-building for the military and Taiwan; and we will approve President Biden's trilateral U.S., UK, and Australia nuclear submarine agreement. This historic agreement will create a new fleet of nuclear- powered submarines to counter the Chinese Communist Party's influence in the Pacific.

I applaud my colleague Senator Reed of the Armed Services Committee as well as Ranking Member Wicker for their excellent leadership pushing this bill over the finish line. I commend all conferees for their good work over the past few weeks.

And thank you to my colleagues on both sides for uniting to get the NDAA done. When we finish our work in the Senate, I urge Speaker Johnson and the House to move this bill quickly.

As I have said repeatedly, we began the month of December with three major goals here in the Senate before the end of the year: First, we had to end the unprecedented and monthslong destructive blockade of hundreds of military nominees. We have done that. Second, we needed to pass the NDAA, as we have for decades on a bipartisan basis. We are going forward on that today. And, finally--and hardest of all--we must reach an agreement on a national security supplement.

Democrats are still trying to reach an agreement on the supplemental. We urge Republicans to show that they are still serious about getting something done.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I see my friend Senator Rounds is on the floor and ask him to engage in a colloquy on an important set of provisions in the NDAA that deals with transparency, trust, and government oversight--the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act that he and I co-sponsored, and portions of which we will pass in the NDAA.

I say to my friend that unidentified anomalous phenomena are of immense interest and curiosity to the American people, but with that curiosity comes the risk of confusion, disinformation, and mistrust, especially if the government isn't prepared to be transparent.

The U.S. Government has gathered a great deal of information about UAPs over many decades but has refused to share it with the American people. That is wrong, and, additionally, it breeds mistrust.

We have also been notified by multiple credible sources that information on UAPs has also been withheld from Congress, which, if true, is a violation of the laws requiring full notification to the legislative branch, especially as it relates to the four congressional leaders, Defense Committees, and the Intelligence Committee.

So the bill I worked on with Senator Rounds offers a commonsense solution. Let's increase transparency on UAPs by using a model that works, by following what the Federal Government did 30 years ago with the J.F.K. Assassination Records Collection Act. They established a Presidentially appointed board to review and release these records, and it was a huge success. We should do the same here with UAPs.

I will yield to the Senator from South Dakota.

Now, I say to my colleague from South Dakota, who has worked with his great team on this issue--and on many other issues, I might add--that it is beyond disappointing that the House refused to work with us on all of the important elements of the UAP Disclosure Act during the NDAA conference.

But, nevertheless, we did make important progress. For the first time, the National Archives will gather records from across the Federal Government on UAPs and have a legal mandate to release those records to the public, if appropriate. This is a major, major win for government transparency on UAPs, and it gives us a strong foundation for more action in the future.

Well, I would like to echo what my friend Senator Rounds has said today and on many occasions. It is essential that we keep working on the proposal to create an independent, Presidentially appointed review board that can oversee UAP classified records and create a system for releasing them, where appropriate, to the public. Again, as the Senator has said, it is the same method used for the J.F.K. records, and it continues to work to this very day.

It is really an outrage that the House didn't work with us on adopting our

proposal for a review board, which, by definition, needs bipartisan consent. Now it means that declassification of UAP records will be largely up to the same entities that blocked and obfuscated their disclosure for decades.

We will keep working. I want to assure the American people that Senator Rounds and I will keep working to change the status quo.

Before I yield finally to him, I would just like to acknowledge my dear friend, the late Harry Reid, a mentor, who cared about this issue a great deal. So he is looking down and smiling on us, but he is also importuning us to get the rest of this done, which we will do everything we can to make it happen.

Again, I thank my colleague and pledge to work with him and other bipartisan colleagues in the future to build upon what we have achieved in the conference report. We encourage our colleagues to join us in the further investigation of this issue and in advancing legislation that will complete what we have accomplished in this NDAA.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5 p.m., Senator Paul or his designee be recognized to make a rule XXVIII scope point of order; that, if raised, Senator Reed be recognized to make a motion to waive; and that if the waiver is successful, all postcloture time be considered expired and the Senate vote on the adoption of the conference report; finally, that there be 2 minutes equally divided before each vote.

Mr. President, 11 years ago tomorrow, our Nation and the Newtown, CT, community experienced one of the deadliest school shootings in American history. Horror ripped through our hearts as we heard the news.

Twenty first grade students and six teachers and staff members gunned down in cold blood inside of Sandy Hook Elementary School. Twenty first graders who right now should be high school seniors, relishing special moments and milestones with their friends. They should be finishing their college applications, taking their driver's tests, and getting measured for their caps and gowns. Their families should be watching them flourish as they become young adults embarking on all the world has to offer. Instead, their lives cruelly cut short, and their family members will never be whole again. Adults who tried desperately to protect their students, albeit in vain, from the Goliath force of an AR-15 style gun.

Eleven years ago, we grieved with the families, we cried, and we prayed. Eleven years ago, we said never, never again would we let this happen. Instead, it has happened again and again, over and over-- Parkland, Santa Fe, Michigan State, UNLV, Uvalde.

The scenes from Robb Elementary School, where 19 students, mostly third and fourth graders, and their two beloved teachers were gunned down with an assault weapon last year, could not have been more reminiscent of Sandy Hook. The innocent lives wiped out in a spree of mindless violence. All of this happening again, right before our very eyes, 10 years--10 years--after Sandy Hook.

This weekend in my home State, we just commemorated the fourth anniversary of an anti-Semitic shooting in Jersey City, where two hateful gunmen took the life of a Jersey City detective before they rampaged through the Jersey City Kosher Supermarket, taking three more innocent lives. Among the five weapons the shooters were armed with was an AR-15-style assault weapon.

According to the Washington Post's database, 2023 has seen more mass shootings--39--than any year since 2006 when they first began tracking shootings with 4 or more deaths. Monterey, CA. Nashville, TN. El Paso, TX. Lewiston, ME. We are the only civilized Nation on Earth where innocent human beings are routinely murdered in mass shootings. Is this what it really means to be an American? It cannot be.

I met last week with members of the Newtown Action Alliance-- survivors of gun violence who shared their heartbreaking stories of grief and trauma. Their message was simple: When will enough be enough?

Eleven years since Sandy Hook and yet barely any progress has been made. Even Ethan's Law, a commonsense bill which I cosponsored and which simply requires safe and reasonable and responsible gun storage, is opposed by most congressional Republicans. This should be a no- brainer.

Tiffany Starr, a gun violence survivor and proud New Jerseyan, told me about how her father was killed in 1994 when her sister's abusive ex-boyfriend shot his way into their home looking for her. Their father pushed her sister out of the way and was shot himself, giving his wife and daughters just enough time to run and hide in the neighbor's house. She is now older than her father ever got the chance to be.

Jackie Haggerty shared how she survived the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting when she was only 7 years old. Now 18, she continues to bravely share her story and advocate for gun safety legislation. She broke down in tears during our meeting, describing the sheer horror and trauma of seeing her friends' and teachers' destroyed bodies in the hallways of Sandy Hook. She told me how all she wants for Christmas is to know that she won't get shot. Let me repeat that. A young woman in America is praying that she won't get shot, which is what she hopes for Christmas.

Only in America do we live like this. Do we let families and whole communities drown in the grief of mass shootings for the benefit of the gun lobby and the gun industry? Only in America are guns the No. 1 killer of young people. Only in America do we pray, grieve, and move on until the next Uvalde or the next Lewiston.

Guns--especially assault weapons equipped with high-capacity magazines--do not belong in our communities. High-capacity magazines, from my view, are about high-capacity killing, not about hunting. They do not belong in our supermarkets and movie theaters, our houses of worship, our restaurants, or our bowling alleys. They don't belong on our streets. These are weapons of war meant for high-capacity killing. And those who seek to kill Americans with such weapons do not have any greater rights to bear arms than our Nation's children and community have a right to live.

Just last week, Majority Leader Schumer came to the floor with the hope of reintroducing the assault weapons ban. He was swiftly blocked by Republicans. Senator Murphy followed by asking for a unanimous consent vote for universal background checks, which also met Republican resistance.

While I am proud to have supported the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which became law last year and which contained important gun safety measures, we must do more. That was simply the first step in the right direction. There are more measures we can and must enact.

I believe we have to reinstate the assault weapons ban, and we must establish universal background checks for the sale of all firearms.

A poll by FOX News conducted in April of this year found that a majority of all American voters--61 percent--support an assault weapons ban. That includes Republican voters. If there is 61 percent support among Americans for an assault weapons ban, there should be 60 votes for it here in the Senate.

A June 2022 Gallup poll also found that an overwhelming 92 percent of Americans favor requiring background checks for all firearm sales. With that level of near-unanimous support, background checks for all firearm sales should be able to pass out of this Chamber by unanimous consent.

Did the assault weapons ban have a positive impact when it existed? Well, a 2018 study by NYU Langone medical faculty showed that during the 10 years that the assault weapons ban was in place, mass shooting- related deaths were 70 percent less likely to occur. That is countless lives saved, countless funerals avoided, and countless families spared from bottomless grief.

I want to be clear. We have solutions supported by the majority of Americans to end the epidemic of gun violence in our country. We just need our Republican colleagues to join the rest of us. We need Republicans to take their NRA blindfolds off and open their eyes to the realities we all face together.

After the horrific mass shootings in Lewiston, ME, Congressman Jared Golden reversed his position and now supports an assault weapons ban. I am glad he has seen the light, but it should not take the death of 18 people and a community terrorized for this type of awakening.

Every single Member of Congress should join Congressman Golden, put politics aside, and put the American people first. We owe it to those no longer with us. We owe it to Jackie Haggerty and the Sandy Hook students and teachers and all gun victim survivors. We owe it to every child and parent in America so that when we say ``never again,'' we actually mean it.

I will end with this, which is a few questions for my Republican colleagues. As we head home for the holidays, what will you say to all the families facing an empty seat at their dinner table or one less stocking on the mantel? How can you claim to be the pro-life party, the party of public safety, when you put the interests of the gun lobby before the lives and security of your constituents? How can we possibly claim the mantle of the greatest country in the world if we as elected officials simply stand by and let mass killings take place day after day after day on our watch?

My hope is that you will think about each and every one of these victims and their families, that you will come back with renewed purpose and commitment to our most basic mission, which is protecting the innocent lives of our constituents, our neighbors, our loved ones.

Let's build upon the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, fully implement universal background checks, and pass a national assault weapons ban. I appreciate that the Presiding Officer has legislation, with others, to think about how we manufacture these in a way that would create less loss of life. It is an innovative idea, and it is one of many that should be pursued. It would be the greatest gift we could deliver to the American people.

During a season of thoughts and prayers, what the American people need--what they demand--is concrete action. Whether or not we will act will define Congress and, I think, indeed American democracy itself for decades to come.

I yield the floor.