Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have been involved in work with the Rules Committee.

I have led that committee as chair for the last 4 years and as ranking member before that.

As we look ahead to the new Congress, I would like to thank our ranking member, Senator Fischer, for her partnership in the last 2 years and the opportunity to do important work with her. And I look forward to continuing

our work together next month on the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies that I chair.

I also want to express my gratitude to my friend, former Senator Blunt, for our work when we led the committee together and to congratulate our incoming chair, Leader McConnell, and Ranking Member Senator Padilla.

In addition, I want to thank the Rules Committee members for their service, and I look forward to continuing to serve on the committee. And that would be Senator Schumer and Senator Warner; Merkley; Senator Padilla, of course; Senator Ossoff; Bennet; Welch; Senator Schiff, who just joined the committee in place of Senator Butler--we also thank her; Senator McConnell; Senator Cruz; Senator Capito; Senator Wicker; Senator Hyde-Smith; Senator Hagerty; and Senator Britt, as well as the staff who have supported our work, including my staff director who is here, Elizabeth Farrar, who has been with me for a very long time as my counsel and judiciary and leg director, has done incredible work. I also want to thank former staff director Lizzy Peluso and Lindsey Kerr and the other members of our Rules Committee staff, some of whom are here today, including Steve Spaulding, who has done excellent work on elections; Ben Driscoll; Counsel Kristin Mollet; Allison Hunn; Kulani Jalata; Khalil Lee; and our clerks, Cami Morrison and Kasie Jones, as well as the staff for Senator Fischer and the nonpartisan staff as well.

The Rules Committee is a little different than some of the other committees, and if we have disagreements, we have tended to work them out. As Senator Blunt used to say: The chair and ranking member of the committee are kind of like the mayors of the Capitol, kind of getting involved in many issues regarding the building itself, regarding the personnel, regarding our Senators, and making sure that this place functions. And that means you don't want to have a lot of public brawls over how to fix things.

We have managed to get a lot done and made a lot of changes that are really positive over the last few years. What may be our committee's lasting contribution to the Senate and the country will be on display next month when we convene to certify the results of the election in line with the significant reforms that we have made to the Electoral Count Act.

Senator Blunt and I shepherded that bill through the Rules Committee and worked on the bill, along with, of course, Senator Collins and Senator Manchin.

We got a bipartisan vote on our committee of 14 to 1 to significant changes to make sure that the will of the voters prevails and that, in fact, we don't have situations where one Senator or one House Member can block the electoral count or that claims can be made that a Vice President can overcome the will of the people and the like. That was an old law that needed to be changed; we changed it for generations to come.

We also will see the changes as we see key security improvements that we have made, thanks in large part to Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger, someone who we installed after January 6, and as well as the men and women of the Capitol Police who stand in defense of the Capitol every single day.

We also thank Sergeant At Arms General Karen Gibson for her good work. We had a final hearing of the Rules Committee last week involving Chief Manger. It was our eighth hearing on the Capitol Police, including two hearings that I held with the Homeland Security Committee--major, major joint hearings after January 6 in which our focus was on security failures and how they had to be fixed after January 6.

We also had our first joint hearing of the Capitol Police Board with the House, with Representative Steil--first hearing since 1945. As the Chief testified at our hearing last week, the Capitol Police have made significant progress in the last 4 years. In that time, the Department has made necessary enhancements impacting all aspects of work, including implementing the bipartisan security report that came out of those major, major hearings that were televised in which we called the former Police Chief of the Capitol Police, the former Sergeant At Arms at the House and the Senate, and major leaders in the FBI and in Homeland Security to figure out what went wrong.

On my mind is always the haunting voice of the officer on the police line that day that went over the police radio saying: Does anyone have a plan, does anyone have a plan; the horror story of 75 percent of the cops not having access to riot gear; that a number of their gears were actually locked on a bus that they couldn't access, with the insurrectionists sometimes having better gear than our police officers had.

Senator Blunt and I then led legislation, which has passed, to allow the Capitol Police to request immediate assistance from the National Guard in an emergency. It was like a phone tree they had to go through that led to significant delays. That legislation has passed and allowed the Police Chief to do that.

The bipartisan security report that Senators Blunt, Peters, Portman, and I put in the wake of our hearings, those changes have been made, and 103 recommendations from the Department inspector general have been implemented--all 103 recommendations. The way we know that is we had a hearing, and half were done. Then we had another hearing, and more were done. That is accountability. That is the bipartisan job of the U.S. Senate--to oversee these things and make sure they get done for the safety of our police officers, for the security of the people who work in this Capitol, and not just the Members but the court reporters and the people who are working in the cafeteria and the people who are keeping things clean around here. They need that protection. They were the ones hiding in closets.

(Mr. WELCH assumed the Chair.)

We also passed my bipartisan legislation with Senator Fischer to improve accountability and empower Congress to appoint and remove the Architect of the Capitol. We learned that day through hearings from the House of Representatives as well as our work in the Senate that the then-Architect of the Capitol didn't even come in that day. He said he was in his mobile van. That person has been terminated, but we found out in the course of all this that we didn't have the ability to terminate the Architect of the Capitol in the House and the Senate, so we passed the legislation that gave us the ownership of it. We hire this person on a bipartisan basis--with the Senate and the House, Republicans and Democrats--who supervises the work of thousands of employees in this Capitol, and we also have the right to terminate that person--not the President; us. As a result, we have our new Architect of the Capitol, Tom Austin, and he was supported with unanimous bipartisan and bicameral support.

With the support of so many servicemembers, veterans, and military families, our committee passed a resolution that paved the way--I see the Presiding Officer, Senator Welch, was part of this--to pass a rule that paved the way for an eventually voluntary agreement so that more than 400 military promotions would move forward after months and months of delay.

I thank my Republican colleagues that stood up on this floor to get those nominations through, as well as all the Democrats, and I thank the Democrats on the committee for working with me on this resolution so that we could pass it to change the rules, and that eventually put some pressure on to get this done.

During my time in the committee, thanks to our great members, we have taken on a whole host of issues: reopening the buildings after the pandemic; reforming the outdated process of the reporting and handling of harassment claims on Capitol Hill, which was something I did with former-Senator Blunt as well as Senators Schumer and McConnell--they showed great leadership, all of them; making closed captioning available for all Senate committee hearings.

We worked to ensure that the people we venerate in this Capitol more closely reflect the people of this country. It is not just about removing paintings and statues; it is about who you put up there so that when little kids come in, they see them and think, oh, that is someone who looks like me.

We passed my legislation, with Senators Murkowski, Collins, and

Sinema, for two statues of two former, trailblazing Supreme Court Justices--one appointed by a Democratic President and one by a Republican--Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Once those are completed, there will be 21 women finally represented in statues in the Capitol. Of the 209 statues in the Capitol, 192 are men--but, OK, I am not counting--but I changed this one statue at a time. We have added five of those statues of women just in the time I have been chair.

We also dedicated the first rooms in the Senate wing of the Capitol-- this was sort of ironic. We had not one room in the Capitol named after a woman when I came in--not one; zero--when we had, in fact, many women leaders in the Congress. We dedicated those first rooms in the Senate wing in honor of women--I am talking about the Senate wing here--former Senators Barbara Mikulski and Margaret Chase Smith.

Margaret Chase Smith was from Maine, and she was the first Republican on the Armed Services Committee and the first major candidate for President on the Republican side.

The bust of Justice Taney, who authored the Dred Scott decision, was removed and will be replaced with one of Justice Thurgood Marshall-- that sounds like a pretty good trade to me--the first African American to serve on our Nation's High Court.

When our restaurant workers unionized, we fought to make sure they had a fair contract.

In one of my favorite moments--and this was one of my more fun things we worked on. I work on a lot of kind of detailed things which involve Senators telling me when there is too long of a line of visitors trying to come into the Capitol, sending me pictures, making sure we have people working at those gates, making sure Senators are able to get to and from, that they get offices they need, that they get their hideaways. Some of that isn't fun, but it is still important.

But what was really fun was when Senator Blunt and I worked to update the rules so that Senator Duckworth, who was just presiding over the Senate, and everyone in her wake are able to bring their babies onto the Senate floor. Before that, we only allowed dogs onto the Senate floor.

Senator Duckworth already had a toddler. She said that if there were late-night votes, she would have to bring her baby with her. The House already allowed for this.

What I most remember from that time is that I had to use a Dr. Seuss rhyme, which I am not going to use, about how we had to get this done because she wasn't going to burp the baby in the house; she would be as quiet as a mouse. It was really long. I am not going to go into the whole thing, but it was quite effective.

So out of that, after some of maybe the more senior Members of the Senate didn't want to change the rule and they didn't want to talk about breastfeeding and things like that--but none of that ever happened. We changed the rule. It is a good thing.

I will never forget the first day Tammy Duckworth brought her little baby Maile Pearl--now not so little but at the time, all 6 pounds of her--here onto the floor, wheeling her in on her wheelchair, with all the reporters looking down and not really a dry eye in the house, and it was kind of an amazing moment. So things have changed in little ways one thing at a time.

We have done important work, as I note, much of it behind the scenes to help so many of our colleagues with issues that impact their ability to do their work, regardless of party or ideology. We help to support repairs and updates to offices here in Washington. In their home States, we have implemented new security measures. We have made sure that constituents can be hosted and feel welcome in this place.

We strived to make sure the security lines to get in the buildings were moving along--there was some transition after the pandemic--and we literally have worked to make sure the trains in the basement were running smoothly. I got a lot of texts from Members about that.

As we look ahead to the new Congress, we have worked with the Secretary of the Senate, the Architect of the Capitol, and the Sergeant at Arms to welcome our newly elected colleagues on both sides of the aisle to the Senate and make sure they have what they need to run their offices on day one.

We also have worked tirelessly to support the safety of those in the Capitol, which I mentioned, especially the Parliamentarian's office, which was really at risk--as I look at some of my favorite employees in the Senate--that day of January 6, and we take their input and try to make changes whenever we can with those concerns.

We work to support the Agencies in the committee's jurisdiction here in our Nation's Capital. The Library of Congress has expanded public access to its digital collections, and its new David M. Rubenstein Treasures Gallery opened to the public earlier this year, featuring special items from the Library's collection, like a draft of the Gettysburg Address, handwritten by President Lincoln; President James Madison's crystal flute; and the original handwritten lyrics from ``The Sound of Music.'' I thought that was cool.

We celebrated the arrival of the new pandas that will be ready to meet visitors at the National Zoo next month. I got to see them already. They are really cute.

Since two new Smithsonian museums were established with bipartisan support after legislation passed the committee unanimously in 2020, we are at this moment working to get those locations nailed down. The locations have been chosen, and tens of millions of dollars have been raised for both the Women's Museum and the Latino Museum.

We have 50 Republicans in the House of Representatives on the bill, on the joint bill, and we are doing everything we can to get this done at the end of the year. I really don't understand what people's issue is when this is not a money situation; this is a location situation. So they can raise even more money than they have already to build these museums. The Smithsonian is supportive of this. These will be very positive museums. People want to go see the Women's Museum, they want to see the Latino Museum, and this is our big opportunity to get this done on a bipartisan basis.

Fundraising is now at--private fundraising--$68 million for each new museum. Directors have been hired and staff working to build the collections because of Congress. Congress gave them the authority to move forward. They have done it, and they have done it incredibly well and found locations that both Senator Blunt and I have signed off on.

These two open sites on the National Mall will look even better to anyone who goes and looks at them and actually looks at it and thinks about it, and the Smithsonian Board of Regents has determined that.

Our work to get the needed waivers to begin construction, as I noted, is ongoing, with over 100 cosponsors, evenly split between the parties, on the House bill, led by Representative Nicole Malliotakis of New York, a Republican, and Judy Chu of California.

As we are nearing the end of this Congress, we have two major challenges--one, getting the two new museums the waivers so they can continue progressing. Our leaders on both sides will decide the fate of the Women's Museum. The four men who are leading our Congress in the Senate and the House will make this decision. Many women have been involved in pushing this issue so we can finally move forward on this, and we appreciate Senator Schumer's strong support for this.

Through the past several years, we have not stopped fighting to protect our free and fair elections, the cornerstone of our democracy, which is our second challenge--to continue that work--supporting our State and local election workers on the frontlines, ensuring they have needed resources, and successfully urging the Election Assistance Commission to enable them to use funding to protect against threats. We held our first field hearing in 20 years in Georgia on the Freedom to Vote Act, which we are looking forward to reintroducing next year.

I am very focused on artificial intelligence in our elections and bipartisan work. I have one bill with Senator Murkowski and another with Senator Hawley to take this on.

In closing, I want to end my work on the Rules Committee with a story that

Senator Blunt always loved to share with our colleagues. It is a story of a bust that he always had in his office called The Unknown Cleric, a statue, and it is a guy that looked very distinguished.

Senator Blunt did a bunch of research, and he could never figure out who this guy was. It was over 100 years ago that they made this beautiful statue of him, and no one could figure who he was except that he is a cleric, because of his collar, so he called him The Unknown Cleric.

At the time, they thought this man was so important, but today, as Senator Blunt likes to tell people who came to his office, whether they were Senators or school kids, today, no one even knows who he is.

So what is the message we learn from that? That what we do here is more important than who we are. Most people aren't going to remember who we are 100 years from now--and I like to remind my colleagues of that--but they are going to remember when we do good things that help them, that help their kids, that help their grandkids. They are going to remember, when they walk into that Women's Museum or that Latino Museum, that someone back at this point had the foresight to think, OK, these are pretty important things in American history, and maybe we should honor them. Or maybe they are going to think 100 years from now, I am sure glad we still have our democracy because somewhere back there, they changed an old law and made sure that we reformed our election process or that we protected our democracy or we stood up for democracy, because what we do is more important than who we are.

That is why this committee, which has been run on such a strong bipartisan basis over the last decades under both Democrat and Republican leadership, has been a big part of that.

I look forward to working with our incoming Rules Committee chair, Leader McConnell, and ranking member, Senator Padilla. I know they are both well suited to do this work. I think maybe Senator McConnell knows a little bit about the Capitol and how it is run. I look forward to working with them.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, no one wants to follow that, but I just thought that I should say a few words, as a classmate coming in together--many of us sitting in this back row for so long--back, the class of 2006, 17 years.

And I am going to miss Jon Tester. I am going to miss the bubble gum in his desk that I always steal. I am going to miss when his name shows up when he is calling, how it makes me smile because I know he is going to say something funny, no matter what is going on. And we are all going to miss him.

So I remember Jon and I sitting kind of here--but I think we were over there--in one of our first speeches in the U.S. Senate, and Trent Lott--remember this?--was talking about ethics reform. Jon and I had run on ethics reform. And Trent Lott was saying: If this stuff passes, we are going to be left with nothing but our bathrobes in the Russell courtyard. That was exactly what he said. And Jon and I were sitting in the back. And at the time, they had us in trailers in the Russell courtyard. And I remember we looked at each other and said: Well, so what. It couldn't get any worse than where we are now. Like, that is what we are doing now.

And that was the old days when to even get any of these ethics rules passed, it was really hard.

And what Senator Booker was saying about you being brave and ahead of your time--from the moment you got here, you were ahead of your time about what this job meant.

Then I remember Sharla. I am looking for her up there. Right up there; there she is. The very first official, big event I ever did with Jon, I was following him up on the podium. And I remember he got up there, and he said: You know what, I have been traveling all over the country, and I am going to win this race.

This was 2006.

I am going to win this race, I know I am; but right now, I haven't seen my wife Sharla for 3 weeks, and I have a beer sitting at the table, and I am going to just go back and sit with my wife and have that beer. Thank you.

And he got a standing ovation for that speech. And it was just an example of Jon: to the point, all the time.

My favorite note that I am going to save forever in my desk, it was during the impeachment hearing. Many of you remember Sherrod would always be kind of talking out of turn. But we would have a lot of mentions--I see our friends down there remembering this--of the Founding Fathers at the time. So I have a note that I wrote to Bob Casey that said: As it approaches midnight and we keep hearing about the Founding Fathers, I start to think that you look like a Founding Father, Bob. Your hair looks like a Founding Father. But Tester, not so much.

We are going to miss your barber, wherever he is. And he is back in Montana, I am sure.

But I remember some of Jon's first ads where he had his barber in those ads. And it just was him, and it is him now. And he looks exactly the same with his haircut as he did when he first started running.

There has been a lot of talk about his incredible leadership, many things he has done, worked with us on competition issues, trying to make sure that we still have small farms in this country. And it means something. But for me, the most meaningful thing, Jon, was that PACT Act and how, when our veterans signed up to serve, there shouldn't be a waiting line, and when they come home to this country and they have a healthcare problem and they want to get in to get healthcare at the VA or they want to get coverage, there should never be a waiting line in the United States of America.

Jon did that--Jon's leadership--working across the aisle, like he has done on so many other things.

We are going to miss his Montana rural work ethic, his sense of humor, his 40-pound suitcases of meat that he butchered himself, and, yes, even his musical talents. Because in addition to us losing a tireless champion for Montana, we are also going to lose the Senate's only trumpet player and, certainly, the Senate's only seven-fingered trumpet player.

So, Mr. President, I join my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to celebrate Jon Tester and to know he is not going to be far away--the flattop dirt farmer who went from Havre, MT, to the U.S. Senate and never forgot where he came from.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

(Applause.)

Madam President, as we saw Senator Peters' emotion about our dear friend, I saw that emotion well up in the eyes of so many of her staff, even before she started to speak, and I think that is because of the love that Debbie has engendered for so many years with this staff. And it is such a tribute to you, Debbie, that they came from all over the place to see you--from the past, from the present, from Michigan. So that is a lasting legacy.

Another legacy I was thinking about is that incredible portrait in the Agriculture room--and I see Senator Smith, who sits in that room with me--of you surrounded by fruits and vegetables, as you should be. And it is the first portrait of any chair of the Agriculture Committee that is surrounded by fruits and vegetables, and that is a tribute to you because you got that done for America.

I think about the persistence that Gary just spoke to, that persistence always with a smile, always with lipstick, always focused on getting things done. And that is something that I think, when a lot of us wake up and things are down, to remember that smile and how persistent you were to get those things done is something that will inspire all of us.

And, as you mentioned, with Elissa Slotkin, this incredible new leader coming to the Senate, you made sure that your legacy carried on with her election. So we thank you for that.

I have had the great privilege of watching you stand up firsthand in those Agriculture rooms and hearing rooms to stand up for nutrition like no one really has ever done before in a leadership position in that committee; how you have stood up for our farmers, yes, but also for the people that rely on getting that affordable food; your standing up for the autoworkers, I think, in the wayback zone, when you stood up at that horrible time for the industry and you were there for them; the investing in mental healthcare.

You mentioned one of my favorite stories, and that story is, yes, rather hilarious because Debbie, I want you to picture, was one of the few, if not the only, women in the room, one of two--as the Presiding Officer knows, Debbie will be one phone call away to correct us on what we have to say; at any time, we know whom to call--one of two women in that room. And as the male Senator was saying, ``I don't know; I wouldn't need those benefits,'' it was Debbie who said, ``I bet your mother did.''

And the point of that story was actually more than just the moment and that she got those benefits in; it was also that she was one of the first women in such a leadership role.

There are a few here today, including Senator Murray. We think back to Senator Mikulski and others. But Debbie carried on that mantle, and she did it so well in leadership in the Senate and through her work chairing the committee.

But we all know that her work didn't end in this place. She also led on agriculture and other issues worldwide. I will never forget that she led the first all-women's trip to Africa, and we made stops in Senegal and Ethiopia and Tanzania.

And in my closing story here, if you remember, Senator Stabenow, the woman in Ethiopia, the farmer. She had a little plot of--she was raising teff, and she was alone. Her husband had died, and she was raising a number of kids by herself. And she had become a leader on sanitation for the area, and she had this little graph up on the wall, provided by one of our foundations, that showed her hut in the middle with a star on it.

And we were all asking these Senator-like questions about her crops and about her challenges of the walking 2 hours to fill the water every single day. And finally someone asked: What is your biggest challenge?

And here is this woman in this little hut with only one solar panel, walking 2 hours every day, and she says: Challenges? And she points to this chart of her hut and says: I have no challenges. I am a leader.

Debbie Stabenow is a leader, and she has gotten through a lot in the early days of women getting elected to these jobs. To be able to get here in the first place and then to be able to rise to where she is has been an incredible tribute to her perseverance, to her incredible staff, and to the people of Michigan.

We thank you, Debbie. We know you are only going to be a phone call away. And for those of us on the Ag Committee, all we have to do is look up and see your smiling face among those fruits and vegetables. Thank you for your service.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to honor Dave Kleis, the mayor of St. Cloud, MN, who is retiring on January 13, 2025, after more than 30 years of public service.

St. Cloud has flourished with Dave at the helm. Under his leadership, the growing city has improved its infrastructure, made critical investments in higher education, and opened its 100th city park, all while keeping a balanced budget. St. Cloud has received national and international awards and recognition for its livability, including Most Livable City in the World, the Healthiest Hometown, and Top Ten Mississippi River Corridor Metro.

And Dave himself has earned plenty of accolades, too. He was selected by the St. Cloud Times' readers as the most influential person of the last decade and is a recipient of the League of Minnesota Cities C.C. Ludwig Leadership Award. On top of that, he was recognized as one of Twin Cities Business' 100 People to Know.

As a founding member and cochair of the Mississippi River Cities and Towns Initiative, Dave has also been committed to protecting and developing the Mississippi River, which flows through downtown St. Cloud.

Dave made St. Cloud a better place by listening to residents and reaching them where they are, whether it is at his famous chili cookouts, through his weekly video messages, at his townhalls--all 1,000-plus of them--or even dressed up as Santa at the annual Christmas tree lighting. Not to mention, he is also a 9-year veteran of the U.S. Air Force and Air Force Reserve and a small business owner. For 11 years, he served in the Minnesota State Senate, where he continued to be a champion for working families and veterans.

Simply put, Dave is a great leader because he is a great neighbor. As he has said, ``Love everybody, respect everyone, and it'll be just fine.'' St. Cloud and Minnesota are better because of him.

Dave, thank you for your friendship and leadership, and congratulations on your retirement. You have earned it.

Madam President, I rise today to honor Glen Stubbe, an incredible photojournalist who is leaving the Minnesota Star Tribune after 26 years.

Through his lens, Glen has captured the lives and livelihoods of Minnesotans from all walks of life, each image telling a story words alone never could.

As someone who has had the privilege of being on the other side of Glen's camera--at press conferences, the

State fair, and everywhere in between--I can tell you that what Glen brings to his craft is more than just a keen eye for lighting, color, and perspective. What sets his work apart is his deep understanding of the people he photographs.

A Glen Stubbe photo isn't simply a well-composed frame; it is a one- of-a-kind reflection of humanity. Over the course of his more than two decades at the Star Tribune, Glen has built a level of trust with his subjects that is rare at a time when journalists are too often met with skepticism. Whether he is covering farmers or firefighters, police officers or the President of the United States, he has always approached his subjects with respect.

For hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans, that small print in the parentheses below a photo--``Glen Stubbe/Star Tribune''--is as much a part of our State's largest newspaper as the Vikings scores, the editorials, or even the newsprint itself.

So today, I celebrate Glen Stubbe, a Minnesota institution; Glen Stubbe, the Star Tribune's own in-house historian with a camera; Glen Stubbe, a man for whom photojournalism is more than a profession--it is an art.

Glen, your images are an immortal visual record of who Minnesotans are and what we have been. Our state and country are better because of you.

I wish you all the best.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Judge Peter Cahill, a public servant, former colleague, and friend who is retiring after 17 years of service on the bench of Minnesota's Fourth Judicial District Court.

Pete has spent decades serving our State. After getting his law degree from the University of Minnesota, he worked for 2 years as an assistant public defender. And prior to his appointment to the bench, he served as a prosecutor in the Hennepin County Attorney's Office. I had the privilege of working with Pete for 8 years when I served as county attorney, where I witnessed firsthand his dedication to the rule of law. During most of that time, he served as my chief deputy. By the end of my second term, Pete and I understood each other so well that he almost always knew what I could think about a certain set of facts, and I could predict the same of him. But Pete never just told me what I wanted to hear; he was too honest and strong-minded to be a ``yes man.'' I learned an important lesson from Pete: Make the right decision under the law and the facts, and then find a way to explain it to the public. Don't ever make the wrong decision just because it is easier to explain.

With Pete's devotion to doing what is right--even when it is not easy--it was no surprise when Governor Tim Pawlenty appointed him to the Fourth District Court. On the bench, Judge Cahill applied his even- handed judgment to every case over which he presided.

Quoting Seneca, Pete has said: ``Wherever there is a human being, there is an opportunity for kindness.'' And whichever way he has ruled, he has presided with dignity, grace, and, yes, kindness. He has ensured that every litigant, every defendant, and every victim's voice is heard.

His unflappable devotion to the law was on full display when he presided over the 2021 trial of Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd. That case received international news coverage, but Judge Cahill didn't let that cloud his judgment. His ruling, as always, was based on the law and the facts. For that decision and countless others, he will be remembered in the history books as a beacon of fairness, a guardian of the rule of law, and a true minister of justice.

Pete, thank you for all you have done to keep our Nation's sacred promise of ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Minnesota is better because of you. I wish you all the best in your retirement.

Madam President, I just wanted to reiterate what the chief whip has said here: that Senator Stabenow has, over and over again, against all odds, been able to negotiate a bipartisan bill. And when you look at these past bills--and you can correct me if I am wrong, Senator Stabenow--it has been, actually, majority Democrat in the Senate vote on these bills, well represented by the two Senators from Illinois, who are both in this Chamber today. But I just think the fact that you have over 100 provisions in here that are bipartisan--it is really important to note--because there is absolutely no way we can do this unless we do this together.

And the other thing, while we are going to miss you dearly, as we go into next year, we know there is going to be a major debate on tax reform--which, of course, there should--that will be dominating a lot of our Senate time, and other issues. And, you know, my concern--and you can address this--is that we not let this important bill, which, as you have pointed out and Senator Durbin has pointed out, is so important for ag--and when we see the input costs, when we see the weather conditions that our farmers have been suffering through--but also important for conservation efforts, as well as nutrition for this Nation, and there is absolutely no way we are going to be able to do this unless we have those three legs in this bill, not to mention the economic development and research.

So I want to commend you and just ask you that one last question about how important it is that your bill includes 100 bipartisan provisions and that we continue that work and do anything we can to finish this by the end of the year.

Mr. President, today we honor Park Ranger Kevin Melvin Grossheim of Kabetogama, MN. His bravery and decades of service to Voyageurs National Park were unparalleled. Ranger Grossheim was a devoted law enforcement officer and emergency services volunteer whose actions exemplified heroism.

On October 6, 2024, Ranger Grossheim courageously responded to a distress call on Namakan Lake, rescuing a family of three stranded near Birch Cove Island. Tragically, Ranger Grossheim lost his life when his boat capsized in the high winds and rough waters.

Ranger Grossheim was a pillar of the community and a longtime park ranger, beginning his career with the National Park Service in Colorado and his law enforcement career in Boston. After working in the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore for 5 years, he

went on to serve at Voyageurs National Park for 23 years. In addition to his work at Voyageurs, Ranger Grossheim volunteered with the Kabetogama EMS/First Responder Team.

I honor Ranger Grossheim's selflessness and commitment to serving others. He leaves behind a legacy of kindness, dedication, and bravery that will never be forgotten.

My thoughts are with his wife Jill and his family, friends, and colleagues. May Park Ranger Kevin Melvin Grossheim rest in peace.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota, I rise today to honor Patti Tototzintle, who is retiring after over two decades of leadership at Esperanza United.

Patti has transformed her organization into a national, unstoppable force in the fight against domestic violence. I have had the privilege of working with her as far back as when I was Hennepin County attorney and in charge of the Hennepin Domestic Abuse Service Center, and we have continued to work together on critical issues like reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, supporting survivors and law enforcement, and closing the boyfriend loophole.

Patti's leadership has changed the conversation around domestic violence and empowered Latina women in Minnesota and beyond to tackle this issue head-on. And over 250,000 lives have been changed because of her leadership.

Of course, her work was never about the numbers. It was about that small-but-mighty group of Latina women in St. Paul who, back in the `70s, came together to demand a safer, better, brighter future for their neighbors. It was about all the incredible advocates who, in the years since, have worked to build that future. And it was about every wife, girlfriend, mother, and child who, thanks to Esperanza United, no longer has to live in fear.

Because of Patti, fewer women are forced to suffer in silence, and more survivors can find safety, support, and hope. And Patti is leaving Esperanza United better positioned than ever to continue being a beacon of hope for Latina women in every corner of our country. I wish her successor Vivian Huelgo all the best as she follows in Patti's footsteps.

Patti, your legacy will live on not only through Vivian, but through the lives of every woman who has ever walked through your organization's doors. Minnesota and America are better because of you.

Congratulations on your well-earned retirement, and best of luck in your next chapter.

Mr. President, on October 17, 2024, Women's Advocates, our Nation's first-ever shelter for victims of domestic violence, celebrated its 50th anniversary.

For half a century, this trailblazing organization has been a beacon of hope and healing for women and children in Minnesota. Over the decades, it has grown from an information line into a shelter providing safety and support for 50 survivors and their children every day. As one advocate put it, Women's Advocates is ``the epicenter of the domestic violence movement.''

From social workers giving abuse victims the support they need to build new lives for themselves, to educators working with families to heal from trauma, to advocates speaking up for women long after they leave the shelter, everyone at Women's Advocates has made strides toward breaking the cycle of violence.

Of course, this organization's impact goes beyond the families it directly serves. Today, countless organizations provide support to abuse victims across the country. Their success--the lives they have changed--can be traced back to the shelter that dared to be the first.

Because of Women's Advocates, lives have been saved.

Because of Women's Advocates, fewer women and children are forced to live in fear.

And because of Women's Advocates, a future without domestic violence is in sight.

On behalf of the State of Minnesota, I thank everyone at this incredible organization for being guardian angels to all who walk through your doors. Women are safer, families are stronger, and our Nation is better because of you.

Congratulations on 50 years. I wish you all the best in the next 50.

Mr. President, I rise today to again call on my colleagues across the aisle to take action to put in place commonsense guardrails to address the risk that artificial intelligence poses to our elections.

There are some incredible innovations that we are seeing and will see as a result of AI, and our country is in the lead. I want those innovations to be good, and I want us to lead the world as we have for so long, but if we don't put some commonsense rules in place, such as the bill Senator Thune and I have, to create a regulatory framework for

nondefense applications or some of the other bipartisan bills that have come out of the Commerce Committee, I think that we are going to lose the positive for the negative. So I am trying to look at some commonsense rules, and one of the most obvious ways that we can put some rules in place is when it comes to democracy, which, to me, is kind of a hair-on-fire moment.

Like any emerging technology, as we know, AI brings both opportunity and uncertainty. As columnist David Brooks has said, the people in AI seem to be experiencing radically different brain states all at once.

He said:

I've found it incredibly hard to write about AI because it

is literally unknowable whether this technology is leading us

to heaven or hell.

So we want it to lead us to heaven, and we want to get those new cures for medical diseases, and I have seen the work done right in my own State at Mayo.

But one of the things that we must do--and Senator Schumer and Senators Heinrich and Rounds and Young have been leading the way--is to find a group of bills that we could actually pass, and perhaps we could do this at the end of the year. The ones that I would like to see today--which I know cannot happen as we work on the budget but at least by the end of the year--is to do something when it comes to democracy and the kind of videos and fake robocalls and things that we are seeing that could be a dangerous--and have already been a dangerous--threat to our democracy.

Maybe the first time this kind of hit the national conscience was something that wasn't actually created by AI. It was actually the voice. It turned out to be the voice of a magician who pretended that he was President Biden; and in the New Hampshire primary, he called people and said that they should not vote. That case, fortunately, has been taken up in New Hampshire by the prosecutors and is being investigated and prosecuted.

These are the kinds of things, when in the hands of AI, are going to get very dangerous because we are not going to know whether or not it is Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. We are not going to know if it is really them or if it is a fake. We are already seeing videos and voices and things, so I am asking my colleagues to join with me to do what people have already done in so many States, including in red States.

Texas--Texas--has a ban on deepfakes. Minnesota has a ban on deepfakes. States like Mississippi and Utah have put in labeling requirements so that at least you know if something is being created by AI; so when an innocent citizen looks at the video or looks at the ad, they see that at the bottom.

And not everything is the same. If you use AI to, say, change your hair color or do something to make someone look better, that doesn't come under at least the bills that we have for Federal elections that we are proposing. But if you actually are trying to mislead voters about whether or not it is actually the person, that would come under the bill that Senators Hawley and Collins and I--yes, that is right-- that Senators Hawley and Collins and Coons and I and a number of others have introduced that would simply say: Once you do something like that, then you have to take it down.

We have a number of platforms, including open AI and Microsoft and others, that are supporting this bill. This is not some kind of radical idea. We haven't had any serious pushback for this particular bill because we were so careful in drafting it. We understood that we couldn't include, say, satire. When you have a satire, a joke thing that comes out, the Constitution says you can't really ban that, right? That's speech.

But for those kinds of products, we think you should at least say on it--which is allowed; this is what all these States have done-- ``produced by AI.'' That is the bill that Senator Murkowski and I have--the Republican across our aisle, my friend from Alaska. So these are both bipartisan bills, and I am urging my colleagues to look at them.

Election day is now less than 45 days away. We have voters already casting their ballots, and absentee ballots have been mailed out. Truly, this is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. This is an American issue. People should be able to know that, when they see a candidate, it is the candidate.

We have a number of bills, as I said, that are before us, and I want people to know--and my colleague from Georgia, the Acting President pro tempore, is well aware--of how people can try to mess with elections. His words would probably be more straightforward than any words I will say today when it comes to trying to stop people from voting or feeding them with information. Sometimes it just comes down to some people don't want some people to vote. That is what that radio ad was about-- radio; I am sorry--that call that was made in New Hampshire was all about: trying to get people not to vote or to think things are so bad that they don't want to vote for the person.

But there is something even more insidious going on, and that is that we have heard from our intelligence Agencies that foreign adversaries, like Iran, China, and Russia, are trying to interfere with our democracy.

Just this month, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a public report confirming this. In May, the Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines, testified about an increase in foreign influence efforts and how AI can make it easier to amplify deceptive content. By the way, this has happened before in our elections, and it has happened around the world. It is not necessarily, in some cases, directed at the right or the left. The foreign interest just decides: Well, what do I want to mess around? Sometimes, as in the past, Russia just wants to mess around--mess around with the right or with the left--just to create chaos.

FBI Director Christopher Wray echoed this concern when he said that the U.S. will face more adversaries moving at a faster pace enabled by new technology. And the Department of Justice took action 3 weeks ago to disrupt Russian Government-backed efforts to interfere in our election, which includes the use of AI to spread disinformation online.

We have seen this technology being used to generate viral misleading content to spread disinformation and deceive voters about candidates from both parties.

In July, as I note, there was just recently the deepfake of Vice President Harris's voice saying things she never would say about President Biden. According to reports, it was seen more than 130 million times in just 4 days. Now, you know, maybe if you were to watch the whole thing, you would know that it is not her. Not everyone does that, right? You look at snippets on the internet; you look at part of it. Again, I had people say ``wow'' to me. I know that seems strange for people who are in the Beltway, and they watch everything, but if you just watch something for a few seconds, you may not know whether or not it is actually the candidate or not. That is why, in this case-- because it was arguably satire--you would at least have a label through the whole thing, and that would be a requirement if we pass the bill Senator Murkowski and I have.

Earlier this month, Taylor Swift talked about how AI was being used to make it look like she endorsed a candidate that she didn't even endorse. As the election approaches, now is when disinformation can have its biggest impact and when we could possibly see the worst of the worst.

So whether you are Democrat or Republican, no one wants to see fake ads or robocalls when you cannot even tell if it is the candidate you love or the candidate you don't like. That is why, as I note, 19 States across the country--red, blue, and purple--have passed laws in this area.

On the Federal level, the bill I have with Senator Collins and Senator Hawley is sitting there. We got it through the Rules Committee. But unfortunately our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have blocked this bill from being considered in the past when I asked unanimous consent for it.

I note it is a bipartisan bill. It is supported by 40 national security experts and current and former government officials, including former Secretaries of Defense Chuck Hagel and Leon Panetta and Secretaries of State from both parties. It is supported by former Federal Election Commission Chairman Trevor

Potter, who was appointed by a Republican President. I mentioned OpenAI, Microsoft, IBM, and Salesforce supporting the bill. It has a bipartisan companion bill led by Representatives Derek Kilmer of Washington and Tony Gonzales, a Republican from Texas.

We must get this done.

At this point, we are going to have to now rely on the platform--some of whom have policies in place--to take down these fake ads and these fake videos. Many of them have committed to do so. But those are not all the platforms, and we are much better off if we have standard legislation across the country that doesn't preempt the State laws for their own work but actually sets a standard for Federal elections-- President, Senate, and Congress.

So I hope this isn't as bad as I think it is going to be through October, but I think we are already seeing signs that it is. That is not democracy. We cannot have a functioning democracy if our people can't tell if it is their candidate or not. It is going to make things much, much worse.

We can't stand on the sidelines. Let's work together for the sake of our democracy to put in place commonsense rules of the road on AI to uphold trust and faith in our election. I stand ready to work with our colleagues in any way to get this done.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I first want to thank our colleague Senator Duckworth from Illinois for her leadership. Anyone that sees the beautiful pictures of her two girls with their different personalities, both of whom would not be here without these procedures, would understand once you see those kids. As we all know people in our families, our friends, our neighbors who, literally, their families are there because of this procedure, we understand how disappointing this vote was. That is a Minnesota euphemism for what happened in just the last hour, where we only had two of our Republican colleagues--the same two who voted with us last time--who were willing to stand up for IVF.

IVF is a miracle medical treatment for families who couldn't otherwise have children. Over the last four decades, 8 million babies-- 8 million babies--have been born around the world thanks to IVF. Yet today we are moving backwards.

The right to IVF is under attack because 2 years ago, the Supreme Court decided to shred half a century of legal precedent and strip away women's right to make their own healthcare decisions.

Now American women are at the mercy of a patchwork of State laws, as my colleague from Illinois just described, which governs their access to reproductive care, including fertility treatment. What has happened in Minnesota now is way different than what happened in our neighboring States of South Dakota and North Dakota where, in fact, women have crossed the border to get the kind of healthcare they need instead of, as my colleague noted, what has happened in Oklahoma and other States-- bleeding out in parking lots because they have no choice.

We saw it happen, of course, when it comes to IVF in Alabama. Their February Supreme Court decision brought IVF procedures in the State to a halt, leaving more than 2 million women in that State without access to this treatment.

Whatever happens legally, court cases and the like that change things, that go back and forth, it really is the same thing, all of this. All of this angst, all of this actual disastrous effect on women's rights could have been prevented. But instead, we have a group of people--which does not reflect where 70 to 80 percent of the American people are--who have decided that politicians should make these decisions about women's health; that politicians should be the ones who are going to decide about IVF or are going to decide about whether or not people can get abortions or the kind of birth control that they want or even have access to mifepristone.

I used to think that the people who were opposing us on this wanted to bring us back to the 1950s, but now it looks like it is the 1850s. The people of this country deserve better.

I am thinking of Meta, a woman from Minnesota, who became a mom thanks to IVF. In her own words:

I am the proud mother of twin girls, but without IVF and my

ability to access treatment, they would not be here today.

Our twins are . . . almost 8 years old and I cannot imagine

my life without them. They are incredible humans who are

already bringing so much love, joy, and hope into this world.

Every parent deserves that hope. No court, no politician should interfere with that hope. But right now that hope is under attack, and today many of my colleagues chose to deny that hope to women across the country. In doing so, they are working against the will of 86 percent of Americans who believe IVF should be protected and legal.

Attacks on reproductive freedom and freedom in general is not what today should be about. I refuse to settle for a reality in which my daughter has fewer rights than I did or her grandmother did. And I will never stop fighting for a future where women--and not politicians--are in charge of their own healthcare decisions.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise in support of Laura Provinzino's nomination to serve as the next U.S. district court judge for the District of Minnesota.

I want to thank Senators Durbin and Graham for working with me and both of them for supporting her and to move her nomination through the Judiciary Committee. I want to thank Leader Schumer for making the time and Leader McConnell for the Senate to consider her nomination and also to thank my friend and colleague Senator Smith for her work in support of this nomination.

We jointly had a committee made up of esteemed members of the bar that made recommendations to the White House. Ms. Provinzino is a distinguished public servant who has served the people of Minnesota as a Federal prosecutor. As an assistant U.S. attorney, she has led efforts to prosecute violent crime, human trafficking, child trafficking, and crimes against Native American women.

Through her devotion to justice and the rule of law, she has earned the respect and support of attorneys and law enforcement across our State. That is why she received a bipartisan vote in the Judiciary Committee and why I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support her.

Public service runs deep in her family, and her family roots stretch across all corners of our State, from the Iron Range up north to the small rural town of Melrose, where her great-grandparents ran the local paper, to the Twin Cities metro area.

Like her father, she was born and raised in St. Cloud, MN. After graduating from St. Cloud Technical High School, she earned her B.A. at Lewis & Clark College and was a Rhodes Scholar. She then went on to receive her J.D. at Yale.

She then returned home to Minnesota to clerk for Judge Diana Murphy on the Eighth Circuit and joined the U.S. Attorney's Office in 2010.

As an assistant U.S. attorney, she has prosecuted over 500 cases and has served as the Deputy Chief of Violent and Major Crimes. Her work has earned the respect and support of law enforcement. The largest police organization in Minnesota wrote in strong support of her confirmation and praised her ``exceptional legal skills, unwavering integrity, and commitment to upholding the rule of law.''

She has also received support from former law enforcement officials who worked closely with her. These officers and case agents wrote that she ``is highly respected in the law enforcement community.''

And 19 former colleagues at the U.S. Attorney's Office, including President Trump's U.S. attorney, Erica MacDonald, have likewise praised her for her ``sharp legal mind, integrity, professionalism, dedication to service, and devotion to enforcing the law.''

Given her extensive experience, it is no surprise that she has received commendations and awards from groups such as the Duluth Police Department to Women in Federal Law Enforcement, who honored her with the 2023 Top Prosecutor Award.

The U.S. Department of Justice honored her with the David Margolis Award for Exceptional Service. This is the Justice Department's highest recognition for service, and she earned it for her work dismantling a massive international sex trafficking criminal organization that forced hundreds of women to engage in commercial sex across the United States.

Her efforts in this case are considered a model for prosecutors across the country and are used to train Federal and State law enforcement on how to pursue international sex trafficking and money laundering investigations. Given her leadership on this issue, human trafficking prevention groups have strongly supported her confirmation.

Her work goes beyond women and children and her nationally recognized human trafficking work. She has also led the work of our State's U.S. Attorney's Office on the Project Safe Childhood Program, which is the Justice Department's effort to combat child sexual exploitation and abuse.

And, today, she serves as one of only five ``missing and murdered indigenous persons'' U.S. attorneys nationwide as part of the Justice Department's efforts to prevent the kidnapping, murder, and trafficking of indigenous people. Her area of responsibility covers 22 States. She is ready to serve on the bench. The ABA served her with its highest ranking of ``well qualified.'' I know she will make an outstanding Federal district court judge for the District of Minnesota.

I ask my colleagues to support her confirmation. Again, I thank Senator Durbin for his leadership of the committee and all who worked to support her.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank the leader for his support for these bills, but also for his bipartisan work on artificial intelligence, including the group that he put together with Senator Heinrich and Senator Rounds and Senator Young to really lead a bipartisan effort. One of the major focuses of that effort has been doing something on the democracy front.

While some of these bills actually passed through the Commerce Committee today on a bipartisan basis to start the initial work of some sensible guardrails on AI, the democracy work actually can't wait because, as the leader pointed out, we are less than 100 days from this election; and we are seeing States act across the country--red States, blue States, purple States--putting some simple rules in place for this new sophisticated technology.

I always believed that our laws have to be as sophisticated as those that are trying to mess with them, and we cannot simply stand by on the Federal basis for the Federal elections--we are not talking about messing around with their State rules. They are doing their own rules. We are talking about Federal elections when it comes to involvement with AI.

AI, as we know, is set to become one of the most significant technological advances of our time. Like with any emerging technology, it brings tremendous opportunities, but it also brings tremendous risks and uncertainties. I think David Brooks, the columnist, put it well when he wrote:

The people in A.I. seem to be experiencing radically

different brain states all at once. I've found it incredibly

hard to write about A.I. because it is literally unknowable

whether this technology is leading us to heaven or hell.

Well, it is on us right now as the elected representatives of the people of this country to make the decision of what fork are we going to go on. If we put no guardrails in place when it comes to scams, when it comes to messing around with people's intellectual property rights, when it comes to national security, when it comes to democracy--which is our topic today--then we are not going to unleash the potential and the great opportunities of AI because we will not have put the guardrails in place to make it safe.

This means protecting ourselves from the significant risks AI poses without stifling innovation and working to preserve trust in business, government, and our elections, as we all adapt to this rapidly advancing technology.

With this year's election so soon in front of us, we must put in place these commonsense rules. We have heard repeatedly about the potential of AI to upend our election. All of our witnesses from both parties agreed that this was a threat when we had our hearing. And at the bipartisan AI forum that I just mentioned, there was consensus that Federal legislation is necessary; that disclaimers are not enough in some cases; and that it is critical to our national security.

By the way, these AI videos or fake robocalls or videos of people that aren't really the candidates that you don't like or you do like-- if you don't know who you are watching, how are you going to be able to make your decision as a citizen in this great democracy?

And, by the way, these could be promoted by foreign governments, by foreign countries. We have seen this in Canada where they just completed an investigation and found that China had meddled in their elections, in their elections for parliament seats.

This is happening right now, and we need the ability to take these things off or at least label them so people know what they are viewing and what they are listening to. This is a hair-on-fire moment.

AI has the potential to turbocharge the spread of disinformation and deceive voters. This is happening to candidates on both sides. In the New

Hampshire primary on the Republican side, a video was released with fake AI-generated images of former President Trump hugging Dr. Fauci. That wasn't true. We have seen AI being used to generate viral misleading content about our colleagues in this Chamber, including a fake video with Elizabeth Warren--that wasn't really Elizabeth Warren-- telling people that she didn't think that Republicans should be allowed to vote. Complete lie. It wasn't her. But it looked like her and talked like her.

We have seen this all over the country, and that is why States have been acting; 18 States across the country have already passed laws in this area, including my home State of Minnesota, which banned deepfakes of candidates 90 days before an election. Texas has a ban on deepfake videos of candidates. And that passed unanimously; the Minnesota bill, I think, one person voted against it. Democrats and Republicans joined together to say: We are not going to have these deepfakes because they could happen on either side, and our citizens aren't going to know who they are looking at and if it is the real Donald Trump or if it is the real Kamala Harris or if it is the real Amy Klobuchar or the real Senator Fischer.

Other States who have done something on this: Alabama--these have been mostly disclaimers--Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. If you listen to those States, you are not like, Oh, those are all blue states. Oh, those are all red states. Those are Governors and legislatures that decided we cannot just take this as it is not going to be a problem, and it is all fun and games. They have decided that: We have got to make sure our citizens know, for State political advertising, what is going on here.

Some tech companies are also taking action because they know that this technology has a potential to sow chaos in elections, but we cannot rely on a patchwork of State laws for just about half the States--probably what it will end up being--and voluntary commitments, as important as those are.

That is why as chair of the Rules Committee, we held a markup in May where we passed three bipartisan bills to take this head on.

I am calling on the Senate today to pass, first of all, the bipartisan bill with Senator Hawley, the lead Republican with me on this bill; with Senator Coons, Senator Susan Collins, Senator Bennet, and many others to ban AI-generated deepfakes of Federal candidates, within the framework of the Constitution.

So what does that mean? Well, that means an exception for parody and satire as well as reporting by news organizations. So we drafted this bill with Democratic and Republican lawyers in a way that it could be upheld in court under the Constitution.

Our bill is supported by a bipartisan group of more than 40 national security experts and current former government officials, including former Secretaries of Defense Chuck Hagel, a Republican, and Leon Panetta, a Democrat, and Secretaries of State from both parties. It was also endorsed by the former Republican Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, Trevor Potter, as well as tech companies like OpenAI, Microsoft, IBM, and Salesforce.

These companies actually want to be able to say: This is a deepfake. It is not the actual candidate, and there is a law that says we have to take it down.

That is what this is about, as well as allowing the defamed candidate--the person who it is not really the person in the video or the ad or the robocall--to sue whoever has done this to them. That is the way in other areas in our law we are able to stop bad conduct.

In the House, a bipartisan companion bill is led by Representative Derek Kilmer of Washington and Tony Gonzales of Texas.

With election day approaching, we have the opportunity to come together on a bipartisan basis to counter the threats that AI poses to our elections and protect public trust and faith in our democracy.

Now, there is a second bill that I will call for in a moment that deals with things that are maybe parody or things that don't rise to the level of the deepfakes or are in a different category that could complement this bill as well. But this is for the worst of the worst. And that is why we have had strong support from a conservative like Senator Hawley, who certainly is aware of what the Constitution says and what our rights are; moderate Republican like Senator Susan Collins; and many others to support this bill. So now I will call for this bill.

As if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 388, S. 2770; further, that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Yes. This was the bill--

2770, which is the deepfake bill. The other bill is 3875, the Klobuchar-Murkowski bill, which is the disclaimer bill.

Madam President, I will note again that Senator Hawley is the lead Republican on this bill, and I don't think for a minute that he would allow for a bill that is something that he disagrees with when it comes to being radical or broad or anything like that. He simply agrees with me, as does Senator Collins, that we have a major, major issue here with these deepfakes that are going to extend to, say, what happened in New Hampshire, which involved a fake robocall ad from President Biden that people believed was him calling on people not to vote. That case is, of course, being investigated by a Republican Attorney General, and a case is being brought in New Hampshire.

But the point is this is just the beginning. We haven't even entered the general election yet. That will start at the end of August. And so that is why time is of the essence here, and that is also why we drafted this bill with Democratic and Republican lawyers in a method that was narrowly tailored so that it would abide by the Constitution.

Mr. President, with this year's election now in less than 100 days, we must put in place commonsense rules of the road to address the risk that AI poses for our democracy.

The risks are clear: We have heard repeatedly about the potential for AI to upend our elections. All of our witnesses, from both parties, agreed that this was a threat when we had our Rules Committee hearing.

And at the bipartisan AI forum, led by Leader Schumer, with Senators Rounds, Heinrich, and Young, we heard consensus that Federal legislation is necessary; that disclaimers are necessary for certain ads. And for others, we simply must take them down when they are pretending to be a candidate and deliberately and intentionally misleading voters. I don't care what party does it. I don't care what super PAC does it. There is absolutely no way--and these State legislatures have agreed with me, nearly unanimously, that we shouldn't at least have a disclaimer on them, much less to ban them, which is what Senators Hawley and Collins and Coons and I are suggesting in the deepfake bill.

This is a hair-on-fire moment. AI has the potential to turbocharge the spread of disinformation and deceive voters. This is why we must take action. And I hope that when people see what is going on through August, when sometimes early voting has started, we will give at least the tools to the platforms to be able to point to a Federal law--most of these other State laws have just been adopted in the last few months--and say this is not OK; that they have a right to at least require a disclaimer on these ads, just like they do on TV for various things--and we have all seen it--so that we know what is going on.

Democracy dies in the darkness, as one newspaper has said. And we are literally putting a veil over people's faces if we are not allowing them to assess whether or not the person is really the person that they are looking at on their phone or hearing in a robocall.

I just think it is outrageous if we let this continue. And I appreciate that there are Republican Governors in States and Republican legislatures who have actually seen this as I see it and that there is bipartisan support for this in the U.S. Senate. And I hope that in the fall we will revisit this.