Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. 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.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. 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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. 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.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. 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.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. 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.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. 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.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. 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.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Yes. This was the bill--

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. 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.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. 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.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today because the time to protect our kids from these online platforms is now, after decades of delay, thanks to our colleagues, Senators Blumenthal, Blackburn, Markey, and Cassidy, as well as Chair Cantwell and Ranking Member Cruz, Judiciary Committee Chair Durbin and Leader Schumer, as well as Ranking Member Graham. I serve on both committees. I have been a strong proponent of these bills as well as others. For too long, social media companies have turned a blind eye when children join their platforms and build algorithms that push harmful content out to kids. What have we seen? A recent study from the Mayo Clinic showed us--the study found kids have difficulty sleeping, unrealistic expectations about their bodies or their lives, exposure to online predators, subject to cyber bullying. The result of this is tragic results for teens. I am thinking of Devin Norring from Hastings, MN. I have gotten to know his mom Bridgette. Struggling with migraines, he bought what he thought was Percocet online on Snapchat, but it wasn't really Percocet. It was laced with fentanyl. Right off Snapchat, he got that pill. He died. Alexander Neville, like Devin, purchased a pill online that turned out to be counterfeit made with fentanyl. It killed him. He was only 14. Carson Bride ended his life 4 years ago after he was viciously cyber bullied by his high school classmates who were using Snapchat's anonymous app. Not so anonymous for Carson Bride. I met with their moms. They have come to the Capitol. They are here today. It is time to get this done with no delay. Why do they even need to be here? Because there weren't safeguards and rules already in place. Why didn't these companies act when they learned of the danger? Let's be clear. They knew of the danger. This is about profits over safety. When that Boeing plane door fell out, what happened? We grounded the fleet. We made sure it was safe. Why haven't we been doing this here? It is time to act. It has been 26 years since Congress passed any meaningful kids' online privacy legislation. I am so honored that the chair of the Judiciary Committee is here, Senator Durbin, who helped me and Senator Cornyn to get the SHIELD Act through this Chamber, which would prohibit the online distribution of explicit and intimate images, also known as revenge porn. We just passed Senator Durbin's DEFIANCE Act, with Senator Hawley and Senator Graham and myself, to allow victims of explicit deepfakes to seek the justice that they deserve. The Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act before us will expand existing laws to protect children online. It also goes further to ensure a safe online environment for children by creating a legal duty for social media companies to take all necessary steps to protect kids from harmful features and algorithms on their platforms. I will never forget the parent who once told me that she was relying on her older kids because she couldn't figure out how to stop her younger kid from putting up more and more apps, and she couldn't get around it. She said it was like water overflowing a sink, and she was out there by herself with a mop trying to mop it up. I thought that kind of said it all for how parents feel. We need to stand by their side. In addition to the bills that are so important before us today, we need to pass the Cooper Davis and Devin Norring Act, which requires social media companies to report illegal drug sales on their platforms. To law enforcement, that bill is heading this way to the floor. We need to finally take this on; not put our heads in the sand, not expect those parents to be out there with a mop while these big companies are profiting off of their kids. This is a moment, but this is only a beginning. There is so much more work to do. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise in support of S.1723, the Truth and Healing Commission on Indian Boarding School Policies Act. I thank Senator Warren for her leadership on this issue and her efforts, along with those of Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman Murkowski, and the Indian Affairs Committee, to pass this bill. I also want to thank the National Native American Boarding School Healing Coalition based in Minnesota for its work to raise awareness of Indian boarding school policies and the experiences of those harmed by them. We know that between 1819 and 1969, Native American youth were forced against their will to attend Indian boarding schools across the country, including 21 in Minnesota. We know that these schools, of which there were hundreds, sought to strip these children of their Native identities, beliefs, and languages. And we know these schools subjected Native children to abuse and neglect. What we do not know is how many children were taken from their homes and families. And far too many families do not know what came of their children. For 150 years, countless voices have been silenced; countless stories have gone untold. This bipartisan legislation is about telling those stories. It is about addressing and investigating the lasting harms these boarding schools caused for generation after generation of Native Americans. And it is about beginning the healing process for the descendants of the victims of the Indian boarding school policies. Our Nation's strength comes from the diversity of our people, including our more than 10 million American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians in our country. Their cultures and traditions should be celebrated, not suppressed as the Indian boarding school policies sought to do. The United States has a unique and sacred government-to-government relationship with Tribal nations that is deeply rooted in treaties, the law, and the Constitution. This relationship demands an unwavering Federal commitment to supporting the well-being of Native Americans. This legislation and the commission it would establish are critical steps toward fulfilling that commitment. One of the Native philosophies that has always resonated with me is the belief that decisions are not made just for today, but for seven generations from now. That is what this bill is: an investment in future generations. By putting us on a path to healing today, this legislation paves the way to a better tomorrow for Native families.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record updated U.S. Senate fellowship regulations.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from and the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3448.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions: S. Res. 755, S. Res. 756, and S. Res. 757.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, July 10; 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 following the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Willoughby nomination, postcloture; that all time be considered expired at 11:30 a.m. and that if cloture is invoked on the Wagner nomination, all time be considered expired at 2:15 p.m.; that upon disposition of the Wagner nomination, notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate resume legislative session and resume consideration of the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 420, S. 4554; further, that the cloture vote on the motion to proceed occur at 4:15 p.m.; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Wednesday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I have seven requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the following statement on the appointment of the Architect of the Capitol be printed in the Congressional Record: In accordance with the Architect of the Capitol Appointment Act of 2023, the Architect of the Capitol Congressional Commission, consisting of Representative Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House; Senator Charles E. Schumer, Senate Majority Leader; Representative Hakeem S. Jeffries, House Democratic Leader; Senator Mitch McConnell, Senate Republican Leader; Representatives Tom Cole and Rosa L. DeLauro, Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Appropriations; Senators Patty Murray and Susan Collins, Chair and Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee; Representatives Bryan Steil and Joseph D. Morelle, Chair and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Administration; and Senators Amy Klobuchar and Deb Fischer, Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration; appoints Thomas E. Austin to be the thirteenth Architect of the Capitol for a term of ten years, effective June 24, 2024.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise because now is the time to pass Senator Whitehouse's legislation to require the Supreme Court of the United States to adopt a binding and enforceable code of ethics, create a process for investigating misconduct, and improve the disclosure and transparency requirements for the Justices on our Nation's highest Court. I thank my colleagues Senators Whitehouse and Durbin for their leadership on this issue. I have long believed that rule of law is central to our democracy and that preserving public trust in our institutions is vital to the health of our Republic. It is important that the American people have confidence that the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States are making decisions based on the facts and the law, not private interests. The Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States know this, too. In fact, the very first canon that the Supreme Court set out in its code of conduct last November states that ``a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States should maintain and observe high standards of conduct in order to preserve the integrity and independence of the federal judiciary.'' This isn't the first time that Congress has had to address the need for transparency and ethical requirements for government officials. In 1978, in the wake of Watergate, Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act, which requires certain public officials, including Supreme Court Justices and members of the executive branch, to make disclosures about their financial interests, including income they receive from a source outside the Federal Government, gifts, debts they owe, and sales of certain real estate and stocks. Unfortunately, in recent years, we have seen an alarming rise in reports of ethically questionable behavior by the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States in regard to accepting and not disclosing gifts as required under the law. For example, we learned that in 2014, Justice Thomas allowed a billionaire to buy his mom's house and fix it up for her--and pay for the Justice and his wife to take lavish vacations. We also know that same billionaire paid for Justice Thomas to attend a trip to Malaysia on a private jet and a superyacht. That trip was valued at over $500,000 and was not disclosed by Justice Thomas. Justice Thomas was required to report these gifts, but he didn't. Instead, we only found out about it through the work of investigative journalists. There needs to be an enforceable code of ethics and mechanisms to investigate, and if necessary, take corrective action when the Justices don't take their reporting obligations seriously. That is how we preserve the American people's confidence in the institutions of government, including the Supreme Court. Just like transparency, judges are supposed to be above politics and avoid even the appearance of bias. In 1974, Congress passed a law requiring the Supreme Court's Justices, as well as other Federal judges, ``to recuse themselves when their impartiality might be reasonably questioned.'' This was reiterated by the Supreme Court's own code of conduct adopted in November which states that a Justice should disqualify himself or herself where they have ``a personal bias or prejudice concerning a case.'' In fact, the Justices are no strangers to the practice of recusing themselves when there is an appearance of impropriety. For 50 years, the Justices have followed the recusal law. For example, in 1995, Justice Thomas recused himself from United States v. Virginia because of his son's enrollment at Virginia Military Institute. If the Justices of the Supreme Court sat on any other Federal court, the clear and enforceable code of ethics would ensure that they recuse when their impartiality might be reasonably questioned. But at the Supreme Court, the decision to recuse is up to each Justice, and there is no explanation required. These examples demonstrate why Senator Whitehouse's bill--the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act--is so important. It would require the Court to adopt an enforceable code of ethics. It requires that Justices disqualify themselves from cases in certain situations where their impartiality could be reasonably questioned such as if they have received gifts from parties appearing before the Court. It requires that Justices disclose the same information concerning gifts, income, and reimbursements as required by Members of Congress. And it provides for a process by which individuals may file complaints that a Justice has violated the code. This is hardly a radical proposal and this isn't about attacking one Justice or another. The majority of Americans--75 percent according to a recent report--support a binding ethics code for the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. I call on all my colleagues--Democratic, Republican, and Independent--to come together, pass this bill, and help bring the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States in line with the ethical requirements and accountability procedures that every other Federal judge in this country already abides by.