Ted Cruz

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to start by commending my colleagues and friends, Senator Blackburn and Senator Coons. They both are sincere and passionate about this bill, and they both worked hard. They worked a long time to protect artists and to protect creators, and I support that endeavor wholeheartedly. I want to see this bill pass.

Indeed, in the Senate Judiciary Committee, I voted for this bill and expressed, at the time, that I wanted to see the bill pass. But I also said in the Senate Judiciary Committee that I was concerned that there were not sufficient free speech protections in the draft of the bill, as written, and that free speech parody and political parody needed to be more fully protected. There is a difference between stealing a country music star's voice and using it for commercial purposes and engaging in political parody.

For example, Spencer Pratt, when he ran for mayor of Los Angeles, had fantastic ads--made using AI--that parodied his political opponents. They were funny; they were effective. I don't think anyone watching thought Karen Bass was actually a Batman villain from the ``Lego'' movies, but people laughed, and they shared them, and they were effective communication.

Likewise, President Trump has used AI for political communication. I don't think anyone really believes that there was a flock of Canadian geese marching with machineguns. But, again, it was a powerful communication tool.

So, at the markup, I expressed that I and my team were happy to work with both Senator Blackburn and Senator Coons to enhance the free speech protections so you are protecting legitimate free speech while going after the theft of someone's right of publicity.

One of my concerns about how this bill is drafted right now is that it would apply to satirical websites like the Babylon Bee or The Onion, and it leaves the decision as to whether someone's use of a likeness falls within the exception--it creates an exception for what it calls bona fide parody, but it leaves it to Big Tech to make the decision as to whether it falls in that exception or not.

And the use of a deepfake law to silence and punish political speech is not idle speculation. In fact, California lawmakers have already suggested that Pratt's viral campaign ads could violate State deepfake rules. That, I think, is a real problem.

So I will reiterate, and I will say also that I have no hesitation against strong legislation that stops deepfakes. Indeed, I am the author, along with Senator Klobuchar, of the only legislation Congress has passed regulating AI and prohibiting deepfakes, the TAKE IT DOWN law. I think that illustrates the sort of approach we should have in targeting a specific problem--in that instance, publishing explicit, nonconsensual, intimate images, either real or deepfakes. That is now a Federal felony, and there is now an obligation on tech platforms to remove that content.

So I will repeat to my friends the commitment I made at markup: I am happy to work with you. I want this bill to pass, and I will suggest: Let's take the next few weeks to have our staff work together to strengthen the free speech protections. Then we can come back here and pass this into law while fully protecting free speech.

At least as of now, though, I object.

Mr. President, I want to share the story of a young man named Juan Lopez. Juan was a hard-working family man who lived in Georgia. On Black Friday in 2021 he was murdered while on the phone with his sister withdrawing cash from a stand-alone ATM.

Juan's story is not an isolated tragedy, and, sadly, many of these crimes are never reported.

Back in 1934, Congress enacted the Federal Bank Robbery Act in response to a plethora of bank robberies that plagued the early 20th century. This legislation did one simple thing: make bank robberies a Federal offense. And as a result, bank robberies fell dramatically.

Now, as we are seeing robberies happening at ATMs found at grocery stores, outside of banks, and on back-country roads, it is clear that action is needed to protect millions of Americans who rely on ATMs for cash--cash that buys groceries, that pays for public transportation, and that makes rent.

There are now more than 530,000 ATMs in the United States handling more than 10 billion transactions each and every year. As bank branches decline with roughly 20 percent fewer today than a decade ago, thefts at ATMs are rising, increasing 21 percent year over year.

In some cases, robbers can walk away with $15,000 in 5 minutes. And under current law, Federal prosecutors often lack the authority to pursue them. That is why, together with Senator Ruben Gallego, ranking member on the Digital Assets Subcommittee in the Banking Committee, I introduced the Safe Access to Cash Act bringing the Federal Bank Robbery Act into the 21st century. The Safe Access to Cash Act closes that gap in the law allowing Federal law enforcement to investigate and bring justice for crimes like this.

This legislation has support from our Nation's leading law enforcement organizations, from organizations that represent stores and retailers, and from groups that bear the financial cost of repeat ATM robberies.

I want to thank my colleagues Senator Grassley and Senator Durbin for their leadership in passing this legislation through the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 350, S. 3798.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported substitute amendment be considered and agreed to, and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

I know of no further debate on the bill as amended.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, in reserving the right to object, there is no doubt that AI will have profound effects on America's economy, national security, and culture. It is already having an enormous beneficial impact on economic growth and productivity. Millions of Americans are using AI for everyday tasks like handling home repairs, teaching their children math, conducting legal research, or using it to work to draft memos. It is incredibly useful, and it will only become more so.

So Congress must not legislate on the issue of artificial intelligence hastily or in a closed manner. Robust AI legislation needs to involve both sides, and I trust that my Democratic friends who are on the floor today genuinely want to work together on this. I would note that with all three of the Democrat Senators on the floor, I have worked productively on other legislative matters, and I look forward to continuing to work productively on this matter as well which, I agree, is of exceptional importance.

As the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, I have also been having extensive and constructive conversations with Majority Leader Thune and Senator Klobuchar to give the government new authorities to protect against the potential catastrophic risks from AI. I think that is important.

Now, I agree with Senators Warner, Schatz, and Kim that our artificial intelligence presents new challenges. Some of the warnings we have had are as scary as hell. I commend my colleagues for wanting to tackle the issue, but I retain real reservations about this specific proposal. This bill would let the executive branch handpick a new AI safety board to unilaterally draft standards for AI developers on whatever it believes is related to ``national security, national economic security, or public health and safety.''

The Secretary of Commerce, in turn, would need to mandate by rule that AI developers then follow those standards. The Secretary would also exercise unilateral authority to change those standards based on national security. These terms are not bound by existing statutes or traditional legal doctrines or are even further defined. That concerns me because it is difficult to imagine what an ambitious bureaucrat couldn't shoehorn under this broad authority.

I would be more than happy to work with the sponsors on approaches that do not offer such unbounded discretion to the Federal Government and that are not an invitation for abuse, approaches like involving independent judges, which preserves debate and transparency through the adversarial process of litigation. Federal standards on advanced AI must also address the burgeoning patchwork of State laws.

I would be glad to address my concerns with the sponsors and to work together. We need a bipartisan solution. AI offers enormous potential, and the question of who wins the race for AI, whether it is the United States or China, I believe is the single most important economic question facing America. The answer is that one or the other will win, and to whichever country wins, trillions of dollars of investment will follow as will millions of new jobs. I want those millions of new jobs to be here in America. I don't want them in China.

More fundamentally, as to whichever nation wins that race, the values of that nation will suffuse AI. I do not want the world using an AI that is governed by the values of communist China, that is, governed by surveillance and espionage and propaganda and coercion and control. The Chinese communist Government wants to use AI to control its citizenry and to control everyone else. I am not interested in the American people being captive to that degree of power by the Chinese communist Government. I would far rather American values suffuse AI: free speech, individual liberty, free enterprise, individual rights. So winning the race for AI matters enormously.

Are there risks from AI? Of course. Any new tool has risks. I think we need guardrails particularly to protect against risks in the nuclear space with biohazards and critical infrastructure. Those are some of the most fundamental risks that we face.

We need to, as with any technology, have rules, but those rules should be bipartisan, and they should be measured and prudent. I don't believe we are there yet, although I am very happy to work with my colleagues constructively to get there and to get there in a bipartisan manner.

As of now, though, I object.