Floor Statements

Mr. President, yesterday, Senators from both sides of the aisle participated in one of the most informative and historic discussions ever held in the Congress.

Many of us came out of our first AI Insight Forum exhilarated. The debate was illuminating; the discussions, candid and unvarnished, and direct.

I want to thank Senators Rounds, Heinrich, and Young for joining me in leading the discussion. They helped make yesterday an all-out success.

I want to thank every Senator who attended. We had great turnout. I am told about 70 Senators from both parties attended, and I think we all left with a greater understanding and appreciation of AI's importance and complexity.

By the end of the day, everyone in the room did reach a consensus on a few important points.

First, Congress must play a role--must play a role--in regulating AI. One of the most striking moments at the forum was when I asked all of the participants--the critics, the experts, the developers alike--to raise their hands if they agreed that government had to be involved, and we had universal support. Not one person had their hand down.

Second, most everyone agreed that the government must also play a role promoting what we call transformational innovation. Bill Gates talked about AI's potential for combating hunger worldwide. Eric Schmidt talked about the way AI could help doctors do their job. Senator Rounds, in a touching moment, talked about losing his wife to cancer, which hit home to a lot of people in the room, as it does with millions and millions of Americans. And it led to a conversation about how AI can be used one day to model never-before-seen drugs to do the unthinkable: cure cancer.

But at the same time and with equal vehemence--maybe even more--we had a consensus on the need for guardrails for a sustainable innovation, because just as AI can be used to design cancer cures, it could also, if things went wrong, be used to make terrible bioweapons or other dangers.

I think everyone at the forum agreed that if we don't do anything on AI, then the lowest common denominator can occur: Racial bias that is in our society would be enshrined in AI; massive job displacement and even more unthinkable doomsday scenarios. So we talked about the need for not only transformational innovation that does the positive but for sustainable innovation, where the government installs guardrails to minimize these risks.

It is called sustainable because AI won't be able to go forward if we don't have guardrails to prevent the very serious downsides. And we agreed that only the government can fill the hole of creating and enforcing these guardrails, because even if a good number of private companies do the responsible thing and regulate themselves, there will always be outlier companies that don't, and that brings the lowest common denominator way down.

Finally, there was a consensus that we need to find balance between innovation and guardrails. This won't be easy, but it is essential. You can't go too far in either direction. We want to both maximize the benefits and minimize the risks, and if you go too far on one side, you may hurt the other. So Congress must pay attention to both. That ain't easy. This is going to be one of the toughest jobs the Congress has ever undertaken but one of the most important and one of the most necessary.

To be sure, we didn't cover everything in today's forum. We are just at the beginning. The conversation that began yesterday will continue into the fall and beyond when we host even more AI Insight Forums. Our committees, which will have to do the work--the real work--of crafting legislation, have already held a dozen hearings and are going to hold a lot more, using what we learn at the forums to help craft legislation.

Well, we have a lot of work in front of us, but yesterday's conversation gave the Senate a strong sense of where to begin, and it was a decided blow to the ostriches around here who might put their heads in the sand and say: It is too complicated. It is too difficult. Let's do nothing.

Thanks to all of our participants who came to yesterday's AI forum. Thanks to Senators Rounds and Young and Heinrich for hosting with me, and thanks to all of my colleagues who joined. Let's now look ahead to our second day AI Insight Forum, which will happen very soon.

Business Before the Senate

Now, Mr. President, on Senate business, today, the Senate will take the next step in our bipartisan appropriations process. Later this morning, we will hold a vote on the motion to proceed to the minibus, which contains three spending bills: MILCON-VA, Agriculture, and Transportation-Housing, affectionately known around here as T-HUD.

Earlier this week, the first vote on this bill got an overwhelming 85-to-12 vote. That is yet another example of the bipartisan nature of our work here in the Senate to date, and I hope both sides come out in strong support of the vote in a few minutes. We should not slow this process down because once we are on the bill, I look forward to a constructive debate where both sides can secure votes on amendments.

Off the floor, the work of advancing the President's highly qualified nominees also continues. Today, the Judiciary Committee will hold a markup on another seven district judges, two U.S. attorneys, and other nominees.

I thank Chairman Durbin and my colleagues on the Judiciary for their work. They have helped the U.S. Senate confirm over 140 judges, including 36 circuit judges, 104 district court judges, and, of course, Ketanji Brown Jackson, the historic nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Republican Agenda

Mr. President, on Republican extremism, a lot has changed since I first arrived in Congress but nothing more so than the seismic shift in the Republican Party's support for the members of our great Armed Forces.

When I arrived in the House, Republican Representatives used to fall over each other to give speeches expressing support for those in uniform--the same when I arrived in the Senate. Their policies didn't always match the rhetoric, but the support truly seemed real and genuine. It no longer does. Oh, some of them may still use the rhetoric, but these days, the actions we see on the other side say more than all of the patriotic rhetoric on Earth.

Look at where we are. In the House, the Republicans can't even agree to debate a bill to fund the Defense Department and the intelligence community, and they balk at providing emergency aid to a democratic partner fighting off a Russian invasion. In the Senate, our Republican colleagues are more supportive of our Ukrainian friends, to their credit, but extremists in their ranks are blocking the promotion of hundreds of military leaders. And what does the Republican leadership do? Nothing--tacit approval of this nakedly cynical tactic. They are shrugging their shoulders and letting it go forward. The result? Real lives--real lives, families--trapped in limbo because a select few want to push the MAGA hard line on women's choice.

To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, these servicemembers--the finest our military has to offer--are seemingly just numbers on the Senate calendar. The Senator from Alabama claims that no one is being harmed by his obstruction and that the leadership of his conference supports him.

Well, I say to my friends: These are not just numbers. Our armed services members are real people who have dedicated their lives to serving and defending our great country. They are real families, spouses, children whose lives have been put in limbo by the callous calculation of the Senator from Alabama; officers who cannot assume their new assignments, spouses who cannot find jobs in new locations, families who cannot get settled in their new homes; kids who have to go to a new school can't start.

The bottom line is this: This is a Republican problem. It was created by the Senator from Alabama--no one else--and it is up to Republicans to put pressure on him to back off, plain and simple.

We already see that pressure mount. Last week, one of the major Republican Presidential candidates said that the Senator from Alabama ought to back off. Just a few days ago, the House chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee--one of the most respected, conservative Members of the House--said the same thing. But Senate Republican leaders need to step up. Yet here we are with extremists--extremists-- of one party choosing to upend the lives of hundreds of dedicated and honorable military families.

I will continue to find a way to break this logjam and get these lives back on track.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I call up substitute amendment, No. 1092, and ask that it be reported by number.

Madam President, I ask to dispense with further reading of the amendment.

Madam President, I move to commit H.R. 4366 to the Appropriations Committee, with instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment.

I ask to dispense with further reading.

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 move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 265.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

I move to proceed to legislative session.

I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 37.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, September 14, be waived.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session, to be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 345, which is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Finally, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, September 18; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of Calendar No. 198, H.R. 4366; further, that at 5 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Oliver nomination and that the cloture motions filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Thereupon, the Senate, at 3:28 p.m., adjourned until Monday, September 18, 2023, at 3 p.m.

Madam President, we have been working all day to get consent to let us move forward on the minibus. We are not there yet, but we hope we can get there tomorrow.

In the meantime, for the information of Senators, we are going to have a vote on the motion to proceed to the minibus at 10:30 tomorrow morning. Again, thank you to the appropriators, particularly Senators Murray and Collins, and all the committee on both sides of the aisle.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, for Congress to legislate on artificial intelligence is for to us engage in one of the most complex and important subjects Congress has ever faced. In just a few years, artificial intelligence has grown in complexity, speed, and power, doing things even experts didn't think possible so soon.

In past situations, when subjects like this that are so complex and difficult have come forward, too many Congresses have tended to behave reactively or have favored delaying action until it is too late. But on AI, we can't behave like ostriches and stick our heads in the sand. It will affect just about every aspect of society in major ways, both positive and negative, and on an issue this wide-ranging and important, we must make every good-faith effort to act.

Congress must recognize two things; that this effort must be bipartisan and that we need outside help if we want to write effective AI policies. We need help, of course, from developers and experts who build AI systems, but we also need help from critics who can make sure the liabilities of AI are minimized by guardrails. Those critics will come from two places, like from outside the industry, such as labor and civil rights and the creative community, but we also need critics from inside the industry as well who may know, in a very technical sense, how to minimize the dangers.

That is why tomorrow will be so important. Tomorrow morning, I will convene, with Senators Rounds and Heinrich and Young, the first of a series of AI Insight Forums to bring leaders from inside and outside the industry to debate Congress's role in regulating AI.

We will have a balanced and diverse group at the table, not just those from tech but AI experts and ethicists who have spent years researching and advancing the technology. We will also have organizations outside the industry representing labor and civil rights, the world of academia and defense, and so much more--all of these groups together in one room, talking about how and why Congress must act, what questions to ask, and how to build a consensus for SAFE innovation. That is, of course, what we have called our suggestion because AI innovation must be our North Star in all we do.

And I am talking about innovation in both a transformational sense-- the kind of innovation that unlocks new cures, improves education, protects our national security, protects our food supply--and sustainable innovation so that we may find new and creative ways to protect against AI's risks and minimize the chances of this technology going off the rails, which would undermine innovation altogether.

The only way we will achieve this goal is by bringing a diverse group of perspectives together, from those who work every day on these systems to those openly critical of many parts of AI and who worry about its effects on workers, on racial and gender bias, and more. So I look forward to tomorrow's conversation, the first of many we will have this fall. I expect we will hear a wide range of views and opinions and lots of dissenting views. That is how it should be.

I want to thank every participant attending tomorrow's forum. Thank you also to Senators Rounds and Heinrich and Young, who helped to organize tomorrow's meeting. And, of course, I want to thank all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who recognize the urgency of

On nominations, Mr. President, today, the Senate will continue the business of confirming more judicial nominees. We will vote this afternoon to confirm Jeffrey Cummings of Illinois to serve as district judge for the Northern District of Illinois. Judge Cummings was reported out of committee with a bipartisan vote, and he would be the 104th district court judge that we confirm under President Biden.

Mr. President, on another matter, after a lot of hard work and compromise by appropriators on both sides--a salute goes to Patty Murray and Susan Collins--today, the Senate will take up the first procedural vote on a package of three appropriations bills: MILCON- Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, and Transportation-HUD. Each of these bills passed unanimously out of committee, so I hope they will have strong bipartisan support here on the floor.

And I mentioned both Chair Murray and Vice Chair Collins. I want to also thank all of the members of the Appropriations Committee for their great work. None of it was easy. They deserve great credit.

The Senate appropriations, thus far, has been the gold standard for good governance. All 12 appropriations bills passed through regular order, with Democratic chairs and Republican ranking members working together to move bills forward.

As the Senate continues the work of funding the government, the House gavels back in today with one very important responsibility: following the Senate's example and working in a bipartisan fashion to prevent a government shutdown. The American people don't want a shutdown. It would undo so much of our progress to lower costs, create millions and millions of jobs, and help our economy recover from the pandemic.

So I, once again, implore the House Republican leadership to reject all-or-nothing tactics, to reject unrealistic expectations, and refuse to cave to the extremist demands we are hearing from 30 or so Members way out on the fringe.

There is only one way we will avoid a costly government shutdown: bipartisanship. It is as simple as that. We have seen bipartisanship work in the Senate, and now the House must follow suit.

I yield the floor.