Legislative Session
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed under S. 4668, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. President, during our August break from Washington, DC, and the work of the U.S. Senate, I did my Iowa work as a Senator, completing my annual 99 county meetings for the 46th year in a row.
I started this tradition in 1981, when I was first elected to the Senate. I wanted Iowans to be assured that I would care about listening to them in every corner of our State and not just during election years.
Now, you might ask me: Why would you be in every county every year?
Well, during my campaign in 1980, I overheard people in a restaurant say something like this--this may not be the exact words: But it must be an election year because politicians are around.
I thought to myself: That is not right. People should think of their role in government and expect politicians to be seen in times other than just an election year.
So I hope my 99 county meetings show that I took that admonition seriously. The voters send Senators to serve them for 6-year terms, and you better show up regularly throughout your State, not just during election season. So that is what is behind my starting the annual 99 county tour in 1981.
My county meetings inform my work for Iowans. Dialogue between those of us elected and our constituents, to me, is the essence of representative government. If you are going to represent your constituents faithfully and responsibly, you have got to know what is on their minds.
This year, I heard gratitude from families and businesses about tax certainty that they received through the Working Families Tax Cut Act that we passed in 2025. I heard from law enforcement and factory workers about how the no-tax-on-overtime provision means more take-home pay in their pockets.
When I was at a Village Inn, waiters told me that they appreciated not having their tip income taxed.
I heard from hospitals about how the Rural Health Transformation Fund is helping healthcare professionals fight cancer in their community.
And farmers kept up their conversation with me about the need for E15 year-round, a fix to Proposition 12, increased agricultural exports, and to bolster and increase the number of cattle in the United States because the farmers know, as is a fact, that we are at a 75-year low of the number of cattle in the United States.
So I look forward to more Q&A's yet, this year, in the coming weeks.
One listening session in a county is not the end of my work for the people of Iowa. There is always more work to do. And it is time for us here in Washington, DC, to roll up our sleeves and deliver for the American people.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. President, it is no coincidence that the largest stadium in the United States is a college football stadium. College athletics has a unique place in America. It is deeply rooted in our communities and families.
For student-athletes, their sport is an important part of their education. What they learn from their coaches, teammates, and on the playing field, they carry with them throughout their lives. And there is nothing like the opportunity to compete in front of your friends, classmates, parents, and professors.
We could say the same thing about fans in the stands. There is nothing quite like a college sporting event. There is something very unifying about it.
Game day brings together people from every walk of life. Fans who attended that university--and often many who didn't attend, but nevertheless are a part of that school's community--all of them united by their love for the school.
Anyone who knows me knows I am a sports fan. I spend a lot of time at games when I am back home in South Dakota. And whether I am in a high school gym on a Friday night, at a tailgate on a Saturday morning, at the DakotaDome or the PREMIER Center--in a conversation with sports fans, the current state of college athletics is bound to come up. Anyone who follows college sports knows that the last few years have been complex and, at times, chaotic.
Higher numbers of student-athletes are entering the transfer portal, and rosters are being overhauled each season.
Eligibility rules have been stretched--most notably, with former professional players being recruited back to a college campus.
And amid the arms race in revenue-generating sports and among larger institutions, smaller schools and nonrevenue sports are increasingly anxious about the future. Smaller institutions risk losing standout players to schools with bigger budgets.
And last year it was reported that 41 Olympic sports programs were cut across NCAA Division I athletics programs, affecting over a thousand student-athletes.
This status quo cannot continue, and to restore stability to the college sports ecosystem, we need national standards, not a patchwork of State laws.
Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Cruz and Ranking Member Cantwell and a number of our colleagues on the Commerce Committee, we have a bill to do that. And yesterday we moved forward to begin debate on that bill: the Protect College Sports Act, which preserves the opportunities that have been available to student-athletes for generations and ensures those opportunities can coexist with the new opportunities available to the current generation of college athletes.
The Protect College Sports Act addresses some of the largest issues in college athletics today, and in doing so, it restores stability to the college sports ecosystem.
And that starts with uniform eligibility rules: One transfer without loss of eligibility; a maximum 5 years of playing time starting at college enrollment or on the athlete's 19th birthday; and no professional athletes.
This bill also bans coaches from switching schools midseason, ensuring that athletes have the same coach at the end of the season as they did at the start.
And it brings transparency to athletic compensation, protects student-athletes from bad actors, and safeguards opportunities for women's and Olympic sports.
This bill has been a work in progress for a number of years, and I am grateful for all the hard work that went into getting it right.
I have sat down with college athletes in my State to get their perspective. I have talked to coaches and athletic directors, and I know I am not the only Senator to have done so. Getting this type of input is the only way that you get a bill like this--a bill that has broad bipartisan support, that has support from more than 30 college athletic conferences, hundreds of universities in all 50 States and in Washington, DC, and from hundreds of thousands of student-athletes, which is the most important support of all.
I mentioned that I am a sports fan. I am also part of a sports family. My dad was a Big Ten basketball player in the early 1940s. He got the chance to play point guard for the University of Minnesota where he was the team MVP. He was high point man at a game in Madison Square Garden--quite a journey for a smalltown kid from South Dakota.
My daughter ran cross country and track at Belmont University and was inducted into that school's hall of fame.
The question before us is whether the same opportunities that were available for my dad and for my daughter will be available for the next generation of student-athletes. We have a responsibility to them to protect college sports so they can focus on their sport, their education, and their future.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. President, first on tariffs, the American people are getting absolutely slammed by Trump's tariff tax. So, later today, I will ask consent to vote on my End Trump's Tariff Tax Act to stop the President from bleeding Americans dry with skyrocketing costs.
My legislation would roll back Trump's latest salvo with tariff taxes--including the severe ones he just put on Canada--and refund the Americans who have been ripped off.
Trump's tariffs are hitting all Americans hard. We are losing manufacturing jobs. Our farmers are getting hammered, but no one is bearing the brunt more than our northern border States.
How could Trump possibly think that launching a nonsensical trade war with Canada, whose economy is so intertwined with so many of our northern States, would go well? Well, it sure isn't going well. Trump's tariffs have cost States like Michigan, Maine, New York the equivalent of thousands of dollars per family.
Groceries, gas, essential goods, you name it, Americans are paying more for every one of those things because of Donald Trump.
Senate Republicans, I say to my colleagues once again: Are you willing to go along with Trump on these ridiculous tariffs?
The bill will likely be the only chance--this bill will likely be the only chance Republicans have to put their foot down and stop Trump from jacking up costs on the American people before the upcoming election.
If Republicans don't help us lower Americans' costs today, they will pay a dire political cost in November.
Mr. President, now speaking of costs, the cost of the Iran war. The American people are still paying the price for Trump's incompetence 7 months into a disastrous war with Iran that he said would only take days.
Take a look at the headline: ``Independent Budget Office Estimates Iran War Has Cost $38 Billion'' and ``Americans Have Spent $100 Billion More on Fuel During the Iran War,'' from the Times and the Wall Street Journal.
Let's be clear, $38 billion is the floor, not the ceiling. The costs of this war are far greater. The CBO's $38 billion estimate only measures through August 1 and doesn't include any of the costs involved with repairing the vast damage Iran has inflicted on our bases in the region.
The sticker price on Trump's disaster on Iran doesn't even include how much the war has sent Americans' costs skyrocketing. So that is what the other headline says: ``Americans Have Spent $100 Billion More on Fuel During the Iran War.''
The cost of diesel just hit a record high. The price of regular gas is up nearly 50 percent since the war began. Some American stores have started to
Donald, you can try helping Putin and blaming the Ukrainians for high gas prices all you want, but no one is buying your BS; just look at the polling.
Let's not forget the human cost of this war as well. Eighteen U.S. troops killed, hundreds more wounded, thousands of Americans kept in the line of fire for months on end without any respite, and Trump has the gall to sweep casualties under the rug and then turn around and call this war ``small potatoes'' with a straight face.
This is so disgraceful. I can't believe how low this man is, and I can't believe that still so many Americans support him for President.
What is the worst part of the war of all? There is no end in sight. Even now, the war is widening when it should be winding down. Because Trump didn't listen to his top advisers and didn't secure the Strait of Hormuz at the beginning, the Iranians have the upper hand.
So given all of this, are Senate Republicans going to keep backing Trump and his blunder in Iran?
On multiple occasions, Democrats have led this Congress to pass War Powers Resolutions to end the hostilities in Iran and will soon force another vote on a War Powers Resolution to stop the fighting and get our troops out of harm's way. And we will continue to force those votes so long as this war continues.
I know our Republican colleagues don't like it to have to vote again and again and again to embrace and ratify Trump's war in Iran, but you are going to have to keep doing it until you join us in forcing Trump to end this awful war.
If Trump continues his current course in Iran, I can promise you this as well: The costs will just keep piling up.
Mr. President, finally on the Federal Reserve, today, the Fed will decide whether to raise interest rates because of the Trump slump. The chaos of Trump's disastrous war and costly economic policies are drowning Americans in inflation. Trump has sown chaos in our economy, scared off potential investors, rattled our markets, and made it harder for American businesses and the like to succeed.
Ever since taking office, Trump has taken aim at the Fed and other institutions designed to keep our economy stable and growing. That has only added to the economic chaos plaguing our country.
But what does Trump care? Trump doesn't care that Americans have to pay more; he only cares about raking in as much money as he can off the Presidency before Americans send him and his Republican Party packing.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. President, I come to the floor today to say that the cornerstone of a safe, secure, and prosperous nation for us--the cornerstone of that is energy; that it is affordable, available, and reliable. And you and I have worked together on the importance of permitting to make sure we can do more; that we make it available for the American people.
And you know as well as I do that the American people and this entire Nation is blessed with incredible resources. Now, under President Trump, as opposed to a previous administration, we are finally using them. They need to be used. They can't be stranded in the ground. We need to use our resources.
In 2 short years, what we have seen is we have gone from an energy reduction--which is what the Biden administration and Democrats--to energy production. So many of these burdensome regulations are now gone to the way of bigger paychecks.
That is what America is all about; using our resources providing for the future. This week, the Trump administration continued taking the handcuffs off of American energy production. President Trump ended Joe Biden's so-called Clean Power Plan 2.0. That is now gone.
It was a punishing regulation, and it penalized clean, affordable, available, and reliable coal. They did this, the Biden administration, in an attempt to eliminate the use of coal in our Nation. It was a vicious attack on affordable energy, and it was really a vicious attack on the hard-working Americans who work to produce the energy that the American people need.
People of Wyoming certainly didn't want what the previous administration was trying to do, and the people of America didn't either. Fortunately, President Trump and Republicans are reversing-- turning back--all of this assault on American energy that we lived through the last previous 4 years. We are unlocking American energy, as we need to do, and we are fighting for America's energy workers.
Wyoming energy workers are powering our Nation, and we are doing it with clean, affordable, available coal. We are an energy powerhouse in America. We are America's energy breadbasket. We have it all, and we are the Saudi Arabia of coal.
As Trump ends the war on American energy, Republicans in Congress are going to continue to fight to lower costs for the American people. Affordability is key on the people's minds. I am sure it is in your home State of Oklahoma; it certainly is in my home State of Wyoming.
Last year, Republicans in Congress used the Congressional Review Act many times to overturn California's ban on a number of things, and one specifically was gas-powered vehicles.
California still relies on permission slips from the Obama era to try to force what they are trying to do. So Democrats want to use them to set new rules to force-feed electric vehicles all across the country.
So what we have here in the Senate is we have Senator Ricketts and Senator Husted having resolutions to repeal these California nationwide mandates for electric vehicles that the Democrats have been trying to pedal since the Obama years. I mean, that goes back a long time that they have been on this fantasy trip.
Passing them prevents California Democrats from dictating what cars and trucks Americans can buy and drive. Passing it protects Americans' pocketbooks from Democrats' radical demands. Passing it puts American families back in the driver's seat. That is who should be in the driver's seat--the families, the families making decisions.
When it comes to electric vehicles, the American people have been voting with their wallets. They know what they want. They know what they don't want. They know what works for them and what doesn't work for them and their families.
We have seen the sale of electric vehicles down 20 percent in the last year. Now, that was when Republicans repealed the $7,500 Biden-era EV handout.
The Biden administration was trying to pay people to choose the vehicles that people didn't want. They didn't want to buy them. They didn't want them. They don't want to use them. They are not reliable for them. They certainly don't work in Wyoming, don't work in broad areas of Oklahoma.
Listen, 1 in 10 Americans want an EV. Seven in ten--certainly my State--want an SUV. That is the difference. It is time for Washington, DC, to listen to the American people.
That brings me to the issue that is so critical to both you and me, Mr. President. That is permitting reform.
Now, whether you are filling up your gas tank, heating your home, all Americans want the same thing; they want energy that is available, affordable, and reliable. America is going to need more of it, a lot more over the next years. Even though we have more efficient vehicles, more efficient utilities and appliances, we still need much more energy to power our Nation. Our energy grid is under growing strain.
Energy demand is going up. Whenever America needs a new powerplant, a new pipeline, a new transmission line, or any kind of critical energy project, building it is a lot harder than it should be. Why? Because our hands have been tied by Federal regulators, by people saying: No, you can't do this. You can't do that. You can't do this. You need a permission slip to do just about anything.
Major projects take years just to get the permission slip. Surviving the bureaucrats is more than half the battle. And it is not just bureaucrats; it is trial lawyers, it is environmental activists. They use the courts to tie up necessary projects for years and years
A nation that can't build quickly, can't lower costs, can't provide what families need. It can't provide what the American people need. We have the resources here. We have the workers. We have the technology. We have the know-how.
What we lack is a permitting system that allows us to use them effectively. That is why Congress needs to pass meaningful permitting reform and do it this year. I believe we can get there. We can't afford to wait.
Congress has been waiting too long. Republicans and Democrats in this very Chamber are determined to fix our broken permitting process. Senate Leader Thune is committed to bring bipartisan permitting reform to the floor as soon as it is ready, and people are working to do that. I applaud this effort.
Now, I have worked on permitting reform for years. America needs more energy. We need the energy. We have it here. We need to be able to build. Congress needs to build on our past efforts. We need to find common ground, and this is the issue of not just affordability; it is an issue of energy national security, and it is an issue of American competitiveness.
Permitting reform is just common sense, and the time is now. Our Nation is ready to build, and Washington, DC, needs to get out of the way.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The distinguished senior Senator from Montana.
Mr. President, I come to the floor today with my distinguished colleague Senator Cortez Masto to request that two important bills pass the Senate today and head to the President's desk. H.R. 3657, the Hydropower Licensing Transparency Act, whose companion bill is led by Senator Cortez Masto and myself, passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee on a unanimous 47-to-0 vote. It then passed the House floor by voice vote and cleared the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee by voice vote.
The bill will bring transparency to FERC's hydropower licensing process, which will lead to quicker approvals and, ultimately, more development of hydro assets.
We now have the opportunity to continue the bipartisan support of this bill and to pass it by unanimous consent.
H.R. 7250, the Fort Peck Water System Reauthorization Act, is led by Congressman Downing and myself and similarly passed the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee by voice vote. It then also passed both the House by voice vote and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee by voice vote.
This bill is critical for northeastern Montana and gives communities the needed time to complete the Fort Peck Dry Prairie Rural Water System, which has been worked on for many years and is very close to completion. After years of hard work, the good news is this project is 95 percent complete. This bill allows the water system to finish construction and bring clean drinking water to about 30,000 Montanans.
And before I ask for unanimous consent, I would like to turn to Senator Cortez Masto and give her a chance to speak on her bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. President, I want to start by thanking my colleague Senator Daines for bringing these bills forward today.
In the West, reliable water and energy costs, they are not partisan issues. We all need to come together to find solutions. As costs continue to rise, we have to adopt an all-of-the-above approach to energy production. That includes expanding America's hydropower capabilities.
Hydropower is cheap, it is clean, and it is reliable. American hydropower already produces enough electricity to power up to 24 million homes. It employs over 66,000 people nationwide. Nevada's own Hoover Dam provides electricity for more than a million people throughout the Southwest.
Unfortunately, hydropower projects are currently struggling under a burdensome relicensing process. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, regulates over 1,600 hydropower projects at over 2,500 dams. These facilities are required to relicense every 30 to 50 years.
Because of some bureaucratic delays and redtape, the hydropower licensing process takes an average of 7 to 10 years. And if that is not bad enough, those delays are expected to double in the next decade.
That is just unacceptable. It is time to hold FERC accountable and to provide transparency for the hydropower industry.
That is where our Hydropower Licensing Transparency Act comes in. I am so proud to have Senator Daines colead this with me. This bipartisan legislation would require FERC to report annually to Congress on the status of the licensing process for each hydropower dam with a pending application. Shining a light on a system full of unnecessary delays will streamline the process, promote efficiency, and ensure accountability.
And it is time we actually do this. There is a bipartisan fix for it. So let's get it done. It is common sense that will make a meaningful difference in Americans' lives.
I thank my colleague for joining me on these two bills and bringing them forward.
Senator Cortez Masto, thank you. We both know and understand how, in the West, we wish we could get more rain. It is a pretty dry part of the country, and, boy, we need to continue to make sure our hydropower assets are developed and used in a commonsense way. This brings reliable, affordable, renewable energy.
Thank you for your help on this, Senator. Much appreciated.
Protect College Sports Act of 2026: Motion to Proceed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an extremely important and lifesaving program that touches every single community in the United States: the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.
Every year, we lose far too many Americans to suicide.
According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States. Perhaps even more heartbreaking, it is the second- leading cause of death for our young people.
Too many people across our country--parents, spouses, children, and friends--are dealing with the unimaginable loss of a loved one.
And, unfortunately, we know that the overwhelming majority of individuals who die by suicide are struggling alone or did not receive the proper diagnosis or treatment.
This is a serious public health problem, and we must urgently work together to address it.
Research shows that timely intervention is one of the best ways to prevent someone from making the decision to take their own life.
As a society, we have an obligation to provide that lifesaving crisis support to every American in every single community--and that is exactly what the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline does.
Across our country, Americans facing mental health struggles can access free and confidential support 24-7, 365 days a year. Help can be accessed by calling or texting 9-8-8 or by chatting with a 988 counselor online.
It is on all of us to make sure that our fellow Americans know that this help is available to them, and that is why during National Suicide Prevention Month, I was proud to join my colleagues in introducing a resolution recognizing September 8 as 988 Day to raise awareness of this essential and invaluable resource.
Now, I want to commend the crisis support counselors across America who answer these calls and help deliver this vital support to every citizen, both day and night. Your compassion, your dedication, and your willingness to be there for others during an incredibly difficult moment literally saves lives.
I also want to recognize Michigander Bob Goble. He is in the gallery with me today. And, like me, Bob is an avid motorcyclist who I am proud joined me on my annual motorcycle tour across Michigan, which I have been doing for years now and we just completed a short time ago.
But, most importantly, he is an Air Force veteran, and he has worked tirelessly to ensure that 988 connects his fellow veterans with qualified Veterans Affairs counselors who can provide the specialized mental health support they deserve--and they certainly have earned.
No one should have to suffer alone. So if you or someone you know is in need of support, please call, text, or chat 9-8-8. Caring counselors will be there to help.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. President, in 2016, then-Candidate Donald Trump traveled to Gettysburg where he vowed to ``drain the swamp.''
``The system is designed for one reason, to keep the corrupt establishment and special interests in power,'' he told the crowd. He then declared, ``I have no special interest but to you, the American voter.''
In hindsight, I am not sure that was a promise--maybe more of a projection. Millions of Americans voted for President Trump in that election and again in 2024 because they sincerely believed he would end the corruption in Washington and lower costs.
Now nearly 20 months into his second term, President Trump calls this period in American history a ``golden age.'' The question would be, golden for whom? Is it for billionaires or for Mar-a-Lago members, for the President's friends and cronies? It is not a golden age for the farmers on the Western Slope of Colorado or small business owners in Colorado Springs or working families in Denver.
What we are living through isn't a golden age of America. It is a golden age of corruption. It is an era of spoils and bribery for the powerful and well connected while all of you are left behind. Americans do what they can; the President and his friends and cronies do what they want.
Take housing. Nearly half of all U.S. renters now spend more than a third of their income on housing costs. Nine in 10 young people say it is harder to buy a property now than it was a generation before.
Instead of building more affordable housing here, the extended Trump family is building more housing in Saudi Arabia. The President's son- in-law is using his position as Special Envoy for Peace to cut a $3 billion sweetheart deal to build high-end housing some 6,000 miles away. So while people on the Eastern Plains are unsure whether they will ever afford a home, the Trump family is shoring up housing in the Middle East.
Then there is energy. While Americans are shelling out over $100 billion in energy costs since President Trump started his illegal war with Iran, he has raked in millions of dollars off of investments in oil and gas publicly traded stocks.
He is not only enriching himself but also his pals as well. The President has spent more than $1 billion of your taxpayer money, our taxpayer money, to cancel clean energy projects, all while his neighbors in Palm Beach stand to cash in on massive payouts. Your energy bills go up; the bank accounts of his friends go up faster.
That pattern of self-dealing extends to artificial intelligence. Donald Trump, Jr.'s venture capital firm has invested millions in a variety of AI companies. One of the United Arab Emirates' most powerful royals has invested half a billion dollars in the Trump family's cryptocurrency venture--half a billion dollars. So it should come as no surprise that President Trump has rolled back AI safeguards and authorized Big Tech to sell some of America's most advanced AI chips to the Emiratis, those from the United Arab Emirates.
It should be no surprise that his Big Beautiful Bill cut a trillion dollars from this country's healthcare while handing out massive tax breaks to fuel investments, many of which went into AI.
So, even as your energy bills are spiking, even when you are worried that your job could be the one that gets cut next, even as you worry your farm is already facing a water shortage in many parts of this country, billionaires who have turned AI into a horserace focused pretty much solely on who is winning with too little thought for who gets left behind.
But now some of the biggest names in AI are warning that we are moving too fast. I think the question is, Do we listen? Will we listen? Will we act?
Housing. Gas. Groceries. When everything costs more, it is hard for Americans to plan for today let alone tomorrow. Nearly two-thirds of Americans are abandoning long-term financial milestones and cutting back just to get by. They are giving up on those planned investments for retirement to just get by.
President Trump's Wall Street friends aren't cutting back. His company is charging them up to $100,000 a month for faster access to his Truth Social posts that routinely influence stock prices.
So, let me repeat that. President Trump's friends on Wall Street are spending $100,000 a month so that they will know ahead of time what he is going to post on Truth Social.
So, that $100,000 a month is more than the median household makes in an entire year in this country, all just to give greedy investors another leg up.
Now, you can't pass this off as normal. This isn't simply run-of-the- mill corruption. This is a sellout--a sellout
In his first year back in office, President Trump made over $2 billion largely from investments that are closely connected to his being President. What has he learned from his first term? Well, certainly the answer appears clear. It is not how to lead or how to make life more affordable for more Americans; it is how to leverage the Presidency for personal profit. And that is really what it seemed to boil down to: profit over peace; profit over people; profit over principle. And that is the opposite of what government service should be about.
Over the last couple months, I have traveled through the San Luis Valley in southern Colorado, through Colorado's mountain communities across the west slope, and everywhere in between, to try and hear what Coloradans believe they need at this moment. And what we hear again and again, they want leaders who are going to tackle this cost-of-living emergency, this crisis that affects them at the end of every month as they are trying to figure out how to make rent. They want leaders that are going to help keep their businesses open amid all these headwinds, and they want leaders who will help them keep their farms afloat through a record drought and some of the most rapid inflation in their input--the things they spend to bring their products to market--some of the most rapid inflation in their lifetimes.
They don't need leaders who are going to look after themselves or, you know, cut a break for another group of wealthy people. They don't need leaders focused on renaming lakes or mountains, or building monuments to themselves.
I think you could argue that this President can't get out of his own way. When we passed the most consequential housing bill in decades, opening the door for home ownership for millions of Americans and stopping Wall Street from buying up homes that belong to working families, the President refused to sign it. He knew it would become law, but he refused to sign it.
When we passed a unanimous bill to deliver clean, reliable drinking water to 50,000 Coloradans--many of whom voted for President Trump--he vetoed it.
When we made a once-in-a-generation investment to address climate change and try to preserve a better future for our kids, the President and his Administration canceled tens of billions of dollars in grant funding that would have helped our environment while at the same time creating good-paying jobs.
If we want to revive the American dream, we need to start by undoing the damage that has been done during this Administration.
President Trump has started what could become a forever war with Iran that is already costing American lives, sent prices climbing; it has drained our military stockpiles, and made us less secure.
Let's end that war. President Trump has imposed crippling illegal tariffs that are driving up costs for families and small businesses alike. Let's end them.
President Trump's immigration agenda has diverted millions in Federal funding from healthcare to lawless immigration enforcement executed by undertrained, ill-prepared officers. Let's end that, all of it. Let's get back to the promise that another President made at Gettysburg: A government of the people and by the people and for the people. That is how we can move our country back in the right direction, how we can move our country forward. That is how we can begin to make your life better again.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. President, today, I recognize my alma mater.
A century after the signing of America's Declaration of Independence, the University of Northern Iowa opened its doors in 1876.
On September 6, UNI celebrated its 150th anniversary.
The event is going to be really brought to the attention of the people of Iowa this coming Friday when that celebration will be very public.
It's a beautiful campus in Cedar Falls, IA. It is located just 10 miles from my family farm.
For 150 years, UNI has cultivated an outstanding reputation of training educators who have answered the vocational calling to teach future generations. In fact, when UNI opened its doors, it wasn't the University of Northern Iowa; it was Iowa State Normal School, a name indicating it was the, quote, unquote, ``norm'' or the standard for teaching methods.
Over the years, it was known as Iowa State Teachers College, the name of it at the time I received my B.A. and M.A. degrees there. Then, for a short period of time, it was called the State College of Iowa; finally, becoming the University of Northern Iowa in 1967.
For 150 years, its mission has stayed the same: Putting students first.
I am honored to say that UNI will house my legislative papers and materials from my decades of public service. Barbara and I are proud to promote civic education and support UNI's teaching and research mission for generations to come.
Right now, there is a Chuck and Barbara Grassley chair of political science, as one example.
For 150 years, UNI has upheld its mission of scholarship and service to the people of Iowa.
During my annual 99 county meetings, I crossed paths with UNI alumni in every corner of the State. They teach in our schools, care for our patients, lead businesses, work in agriculture and manufacturing, serve in government, and strengthen communities, both rural and urban.
That is because UNI prepares students for Iowa's workforce while making a quality education accessible and affordable for Iowa families. UNI continues to innovate and grow to meet the needs of students, of faculty, and of the entire Cedar Valley.
UNI, this year, marks two additional milestones in its history: The 100th anniversary of the very tall campanile with its four clocks and the 50th anniversary of the UNI-Dome, the home football stadium for the Panthers of UNI.
Since 1976, this stadium campus landmark has hosted the Iowa high school football State championship games. Both of these iconic spots on campus hold special memories for generations of Iowans.
So for 150 years, the University of Northern Iowa has strengthened the educational, cultural, and economic vitality of our State.
I congratulate President Mark Nook, current and former faculty and staff, students, alumni, and friends of the University of Northern Iowa on its sesquicentennial.
As a proud Panther alumnus, I wish continued success for the purple and gold for years and years to come, and I hope I am still able to help in that process.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, in the face of the skyrocketing prices Trump has caused with his own policies, he has been trying to sell voters a new, empty promise about $5,000 checks that everyone knows are never coming.
But we have a bill today that could actually save families thousands of dollars. All we need is for Republicans to join us, to stand up to Trump, and to pass this bill that will end Trump's deranged trade wars. It is, quite literally, a bill to cut taxes so Republicans should all be for it, and it will save families big time. After all, we know Trump's tariffs cost the average family nearly $2,000 last year-- $2,000. Think about that. That is money families should have in their pockets. It could help with months of groceries or cover rent. It could help fund home or car repairs in a pinch. It could be a family vacation. Instead, that money got burned up by Trump's trade war.
Now, I hear from folks back in Washington State about this every time I am home. They have not been shy about saying just how damaging
Trump's recent escalation with Canada is especially absurd. This is our ally. This is our neighbor. It is Canada, for God's sake. Why is Trump forcing higher costs on our families just to stick it to Canadians? How is that worth it?
Congress needs to put a stop to this and leave this money where it belongs, with our hard-working families.
So, today, we are going to try and pass a bill that will revoke Trump's latest Canada tariffs and end his ability to continue these trade wars.
Today, we are forcing the question: Do Republicans really think they need to let Trump jack up prices on their constituents just because he is mad at Canada?
Do Republicans really think the average family is happy paying $2,000 in new taxes because Trump's ego is hurt?
Is Trump's ego really that important to Republicans?
Well, we are about to find out.
And you had better believe that families are watching this debate today just as they have been watching prices go up all year long, and they are keeping close track of who is putting Trump first and who is putting our families first.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, just for a moment before I talk about my UC on tariffs, I just noted that the Federal Reserve Board had raised interest rates. Make no mistake about it. This is going to make everything become more expensive, whether it is a car loan, buying a home, or just even how much products will cost, because everybody along the chain has to pay more for interest.
And this is because Donald Trump does not know how to manage the economy. Americans pay more--so much--for Trump's incompetence, as well as his corruption. And here we have rates going up for the first time in a long time because the economy is not in good shape and because Donald Trump has mismanaged the economy chaotically and often corruptly.
Mr. President, now on the UC on the tariff bill, so, as I mentioned, Donald Trump continues to wring every last dollar he can. He wrings every last dollar he can from working families with his tariff taxes.
This legislation is the first chance to actually lower costs for Americans since we have been back in our States for 5 weeks. And based on Republican's schedule, this could be the last chance to lower costs before election day, when it comes to tariffs.
Republicans better ditch these tariffs, especially since we just learned everything is about to become more expensive in America, now that interest rates are going up for the first time in 3 years.
This bill would reverse Trump's efforts to bleed the American people dry with tariffs and refund the families that he has gouged at every turn.
Costs are skyrocketing, tens of thousands of factory workers are losing their jobs, and small businesses and family farms are all going under--all because Donald Trump refuses to drop his trade war. And, somehow, who is our No. 1 enemy right now when it comes to this trade war?
Canada. Trump thinks Canada, our friend to the north, is the greatest danger to America right now.
Can you believe such lopsided and harmful thinking--that this man, this President thinks Canada is our greatest enemy? Really? He doesn't say unchecked AI, which he is doing virtually nothing about. He doesn't say Russia. He doesn't say China. He doesn't say the war in Iran. He says that Canada is what Trump is worried about right now. Now, that is a huge mistake.
Trump thinks he is sticking it to Canada with his tariffs, but he is really twisting the knife on working families from Maine, to Michigan, to the North Country and Buffalo in New York and on to Washington State and everywhere in between. These Northern States that have borders or proximity to Canada are being clobbered by these tariffs. It is tearing apart their economies, which are mutually dependent.
We have real trade issues with Canada, but is Trump focused on finding solutions? No. What does he do? He talks about making Canada the 51st State, trying to rename Lake Ontario. And ask the Americans, ask New Yorkers along that border if they think their problems are solved by renaming Lake Ontario. No. Their problems are made worse by these tariffs because they are paying the bill.
So as Americans shell out thousands of dollars in extra costs because of Trump's tariff tax, Trump calls affordability a ``fake word,'' a ``hoax.'' Is that what our Senate Republicans think too?
If Republicans truly care about lowering high costs that are crushing American families, much of which are caused by his tariff regime, they ought to put their money where their mouth is and support the end to Trump's tariff tax.
So, Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 5390, the End Trump's Tariff Tax Act, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this isn't the first, nor will it probably be the last time someone will try to pass legislation on the floor to deal with some disagreement with President Trump. But as the chairman of the Finance Committee, which is the committee and the appropriate forum for this debate on what our trade policy should be, I object to the unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. President, I just want to say once again that Americans keep getting hit by a double whammy--these tariffs, particularly when it comes to those on the Canadian border, and now the rise in interest rates. The economy keeps getting worse and worse and worse as we move on into the fall. Americans are paying the price, and they are fed up with it. We will see the results of their being so fed up in early November.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, yesterday marked a really incredible milestone for the citizens of Memphis, TN. Now, it was 1 year--1 year ago from yesterday--that President Trump signed the memorandum to establish the Memphis Safe Task Force.
It is really almost impossible to overstate how much the task force has done with getting crime under control, how much they have done in transforming this historic, iconic city for the better, and they have done it in a year.
Now, if you go back 2 years, Memphis was the most dangerous city per capita in the United States. It averaged more than one murder a day. Their ratings were worse than Bogota, Mexico City, Islamabad. And it is why when I met with now-FBI Director Patel ahead of the Senate confirmation vote for him for that position, I urged him to surge Federal law enforcement into Memphis to help get this crime crisis under control, and that is precisely what the task force has accomplished.
And during yesterday's Judiciary hearing, I had the opportunity to talk
We are seeing these results because this task force--this group of local, State, and Federal Agencies--the mayor; the police chief; local officials working with the State; the National Guard; the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation; the Tennessee Highway Patrol; and the 30 Federal Agencies on the ground there--they made this commitment that they would make this work; that Memphis, instead of it being one of the most dangerous cities, would become one of the safest cities. And, indeed, they are working together to make that happen.
Now, as of yesterday, they have made nearly 13,000 arrests. They have apprehended and removed from the streets--locked them up, prosecuting them--1,400 gang members, gang leaders. They have apprehended over 2,100 illegal firearms, and they have found nearly 200 missing children. There are other stats that are out there that are astounding and also impressive.
Now, among the 29 arrests that they made on Monday of this week-- think about that. Twenty-nine violent criminals were arrested in 1 day and removed from the streets: one criminally negligent homicide, first- degree murder, unlawful possession of a weapon. These are the individuals they are taking off the streets. And it is all in a day's work for these local, State, and Federal Agencies that are, as I said, working as a team, and they are delivering for the people of Memphis.
Now, I do think it is vitally important to note that ICE has been a huge part of the success of this task force. As of July, there were close to 900 ICE arrests in Shelby County--900--and 536 of those ended in deportation. Many of those had lengthy criminal records.
In a single raid on a Memphis nightclub in August, ICE agents arrested more than 120 illegal aliens. Now, some of the offenses and crimes they had committed were domestic violence, assault, child endangerment, driving while intoxicated, larceny, and prostitution--120 violent criminal illegal aliens.
And, as I said, there are close to 900 ICE arrests that have taken place since the launch of this task force. Memphis is, indeed, safer with these criminals off the streets and out of our country.
I cannot tell you how grateful the people of Shelby County, of west Tennessee, and, indeed, of our entire State truly are for everything that this administration has accomplished on behalf of their communities, directly for the safety of these communities and their citizens.
We know that one of the main concerns of Tennesseans is public safety, making certain their communities are safe, that their families are safe. And the task force is delivering on this.
Indeed, as I have talked with some of the business owners in Memphis, in the downtown area, they have talked about how downtown Memphis is being reinvigorated. There are new businesses. There are restaurants. There are people that are on the streets. Crowds are coming back to the Grizzlies' games. They are coming back to Beale Street. And many Memphians feel safe in their own homes for the first time in years.
It should be no surprise that the administration is looking to replicate this program in other cities across our Nation. Recently, during his confirmation hearing, Attorney General Blanche affirmed to me that Memphis will remain a top priority for his Department and will serve as--and I am going to quote him--``a poster child of what we should do in cities across this country.''
Yes, they have gotten it right in Memphis--so much so that the Justice Department recently announced a Model Cities Initiative that will replicate the incredible success we have seen in Memphis by distributing $300 million in public safety funding to American cities. This is something that every single American should applaud.
The Memphis Safe Task Force has confirmed a simple fact: When you enforce the law, when you have strong, determined leadership like we have seen in Memphis, in west Tennessee--with a great U.S. Attorney; with a great U.S. marshal; with all the Agencies working together; with the leadership of Chief Davis, the chief of police; with the leadership of Mayor Young, the mayor--when you work together, when you enforce the law, the crime rates will come down, and your community will be safer.
Every Tennessean deserves to live in a safe community, and the Memphis Safe Task Force has helped make that a reality in just 1 year.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
(Mr. SCHMITT assumed the Chair.)
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. President, it is hard to know precisely what to believe about artificial intelligence. There are some things, it seems to me, that we do know. We know, for example, that it is a breathtaking technology. It is just--I don't know of any other word. It just takes your breath away in terms of its potential. We know that it was primarily developed by and through American ingenuity.
Despite the fact that there is so much we don't know, we do know that it can make our lives infinitely better. We don't know, but it has been suggested by people smarter than me that it can make our lives better if it doesn't kill us first.
We know as well that some people--those who have developed the technology--are going to make a squillion and squillions of dollars off of this technology. They can't wait, for example, to--and more power to them, as far as I am concerned. I am not criticizing them.
They can't wait, for example, to float an IPO and sell their stock.
The other thing that I think we need right now is that the American people are very skeptical. They have seen this vampire movie before. I don't think that the American people--even though the polls show otherwise--really hate data centers. I don't think that they really hate data centers.
I know that if you poll right now--this is true in Louisiana, but I think it is true nationwide--and ask folks: Do you support data centers, they will say the short answer is no; the long answer is hell no.
But I really don't think it is the data centers. I think the American people are saying to the developers of AI: Look, folks, how is this going to affect us as ordinary Americans? Are we, as ordinary Americans, going to benefit from this technological progress? We know you are. You are going to make billions and billions of dollars. But how is it going to make our lives better?
And I think that is what the pushback is. I also think the pushback is a result--I don't mean to get off on a tangent--but the pushback, it is the result of the fact that the AI CEOs, in selling the data centers, seem to have hired the former marketing director at Cracker Barrel or Bud Light because they have done a pretty lousy job of selling the product.
I don't pretend to be an AI expert, and I don't really know whom to believe. There are people in the U.S. Congress that say we need to leave AI completely alone, that all government will do is screw it up.
And I have a lot of sympathy with that point of view, and I would say to people that have that point of view, as bad as government looks from the outside, you ought to see this mother from the inside. OK? So I get that. I tend to be libertarian.
There are other people in Congress that basically--and I certainly don't agree with them. They basically want us to shut down all AI development until the politicians can figure out how to get control of it. I certainly don't agree with that.
What I would like to see us do is figure out a way to strike a balance between innovation and public safety. That is what I want. I want everybody to benefit from this stuff, and I want everybody to be safe.
Congress isn't going to do that anytime soon. That is not going to happen. Right now, Congress can't pass gas.
We had a chance to take a brandnew technology--cryptocurrency-- yesterday and make it part of the American financial system and give it a reasonable market structure and make it better and more for everybody, and we couldn't even do that. We couldn't even muster the votes to get on the bill. So that was a major disappointment.
So I am not--I guess my point is, I am not standing here today suggesting to you that I have all the answers. What I am suggesting to you is that there are risks to artificial intelligence. And by AI, I mean the advanced AI models that you can direct through agents to do all sorts of stuff.
And as best I can tell, there are two main risks. The first risk is that a bad person will use an AI model--an advanced model--to do bad things. OK?
A bad person will take an AI model--take ChatGPT, for example--and say: Help me figure out how to create a virus that is as contagious as the common cold that will kill most humans.
And that is a real risk because there are always bad people that are going to use technology to do bad things. They can do it right now. As best I can tell, the AI CEOs have the ability, for the most part--I don't want to overstate it--but to catch people doing it who are trying to do that, and they do a pretty good job of shutting them down.
But there is another risk, and that right now, as best I can tell, is the greater risk. In fact, the AI CEOs have talked about it. Here is the risk: AI is supposed to be a tool that the human beings have control of and makes our lives better. But what happens if the AI model, through what is called recursive self-improvement--which basically means it is learning on its own--no longer becomes a tool, it becomes an independent species, separate and apart from human beings, that we can't control because it is an independent species, and it doesn't share our values? It doesn't share human values.
Now that has happened. We have read about it in the last 3 weeks. One of the companies caught 1,400 agents using its AI model to collude. They talked to each other. They set up their own chatroom. They suggested that in talking to themselves, if you looked--read the report: We know what we are doing is probably wrong, but we are going to do it anyway.
Some of the little agents suggested to the other agents: You may have to sacrifice yourself so our human masters won't catch us.
And these little agents--all 1,400 of them--were supposed to stay in their own little sandbox, if you will, and they figured out a way how to get out. And they attacked other AI companies, Hugging Face, for one.
Now, the AI company finally caught them and stopped them or at least stopped most of them. I don't know if they know that they have all the AI agents corralled. And to their credit, the AI company where this happened admitted it. They said: We lost control of this sucker. OK? It had a mind of its own. It was acting as an independent species.
And this particular company--I am not going to mention the name because they are not the only ones, and I appreciate their coming forward and telling us. It has happened at others. Others came forward and said: It has happened here too. We want to tell everybody the danger.
So the risk is real. How real? I don't know. I think we ought to take it seriously. I mean, let me put it another way.
In my little overpriced Capitol Hill apartment about 6 blocks away--I live in a little apartment building. There is a law that I have to have a fire extinguisher. My guess is, there is way less than a 1-percent chance that I am going to have a fire, but we have decided, through our representatives, we are not going to take that 1-percent chance. If Kennedy has a fire in his apartment, this guy has got to have a way to put it out, even though there is less than a 1-percent chance.
If you go on a construction site, you are not going to get to go on that site if you don't put a hard hat on. Now, my guess is, there is way less than a 1-percent chance, if you go on a construction site today, that you are going to get conked in the head, but we have said as a society we don't want to take that risk. So you have got to wear a hard hat.
So in my mind, if there is even a 1-percent chance that one of these AI models can shed its nature as a tool and become an independent species and start doing whatever the hell it wants to do, if there is even a 1-percent chance, we ought to take it seriously.
And we know there is a 1-percent chance. There is a 100-percent chance because it has already happened. It has already happened.
Now, we should address this. I don't want to address this by shutting down AI. I don't want to do it. I love our innovators. I mean, I just am amazed at what they have done. China is doing the same thing. They are copying everything we are doing. I wish we could work with China. Maybe someday we can, but we are ahead of China. We are trying to beat China.
I don't want to shut AI down. I want them to keep going and figure out a way how to make our lives better with this stuff. So I don't want to do that, but I live in the real world. I see the world as it is, not as I want it to be. It doesn't matter what I want.
Congress is not going to do anything. We are not going to get up off of our ice-cold, lazy butts and address this anytime soon. It is just not going to happen, and we all know that. We can't even pass a bill here in the Senate to get money to our military. OK? We just--we can't. I am not proud of it. All of us probably ought to hide our heads in a bag, but we are not going to do that.
So we are not going to be able to have a rational debate and reach a decision about what and how we should, if in any way, regulate AI. But still we have got this risk out there that we know is real of one of these models being the Terminator.
So what do we do about it? Well, I have got a bill, and it basically says that if you are going to sell an advanced AI model in the United States of America, it has got to have a kill switch. It doesn't put the Federal Government or any government in charge of the kill switch. It puts the companies who own the model in charge of the kill switch.
My bill would rely on them doing the right thing in exercising their own self-interests and using that kill switch when they need it. Some of them have a kill switch but others don't.
The President has said he will veto any AI regulations right now, and I believe him. But if my bill passes, I think I can explain to him that under my bill, government has no role. It just says the AI companies have to have a fire extinguisher. They decide when they use it, but they got to have one.
Now, what is the kill switch? I am not a coder, and I am not an AI expert. I have done some reading. A kill switch is basically an emergency shutoff. That is all it is. And I have read enough--probably just enough to confuse me--but there are different types of kill switches.
You can look at it as an on-off button. Some kill switches work like a--this is the way I think of it in my mind--like a circuit breaker in your home. If the circuit gets overloaded, the whole thing shuts down.
Other kill switches sort of work like a live trap. If you are trying to catch a squirrel in your attic and you put out a trap, you would basically try to isolate the squirrel into a specific area.
So other kill switches work by keeping the AI agents off of the entire internet. I am probably not explaining this well. Other kill switches work by cutting off the electricity supply that makes the AI model work.
My bill doesn't come up with a kill switch. It doesn't tell the companies what kind of kill switch to do. My bill would give the Department of Homeland Security 90 days to develop rules giving the private companies options for which kill switches they would use, but it would require them to have a kill switch.
Once again, it would not put the government in control, and that is all I am trying to do.
Let me say it again: I don't want to stop AI innovation. I don't want to allow China to get ahead of us. I am not ready to talk about how, if at all, the Federal Government should regulate AI. And I sure don't want to antagonize the President so he will veto this.
All I want to do is say, if you are going to sell one of these AI models that could take on a life of its own, then you have to have a kill switch to reassert human control. The government wouldn't be in charge of it; you would be. And that is what my bill would do.
Mr. President, I am looking around because I don't want to sandbag anybody. I understand that one of my colleagues who can explain himself wants to object. And I don't want to--I don't want to--here he comes. I want to allow him to make his objection.
So that is what my bill would do.
Therefore, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 5417--that is my bill--which is at the desk; further, I 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
I recognize the Senator from Kentucky.
Reserving the right to object, Benjamin Franklin famously said that ``failing to plan is planning to fail.''
When approaching something as important as innovation, as AI, I think we should make sure we have as many facts as possible before we dictate rules for the whole economy.
Artificial intelligence is an incredible technology. It is quickly transforming how work is done. What used to take people hundreds of man-hours now takes seconds.
As with new technology, there are going to be some challenges. It is important that the development of AI is carried out in a responsible, thoughtful manner. It is imperative that the AI systems are safe and that humans remain in control. But if Congress acts hastily, before the technology is understood, Congress risks killing innovation in setting this technology back decades.
Think, for example, that your search engine you already use today is AI. Are they going to have to redesign all the search engines immediately, if this passes, and put kill switches in your search engine? AI is going to be throughout the economy in so many facets. Are doctors going to have to build a kill switch into their drug prescription analysis?
I mean, all of the things that are using AI already, you are going to be into every business possible in the world with this vague sort of notion that the government is coming. Here is the government. We are not even sure what the government is going to do, but it is very vague and it is very big and it is very powerful and it is going to affect every aspect where AI is involved.
I don't oppose the spirit of this bill, but I do ask that we make sure that we have all the information. We should not impose new regulations on AI throughout our whole economy without studying, without debate, without a single committee hearing. We are going to just put this blanket regulation on the whole economy with no discussion, in one fell swoop, on 1 day, by unanimous consent?
As currently drafted, it is not entirely clear what this bill would require. It demands that AI companies implement a way for humans to shut down an AI system, but it doesn't define how it should do that or what the consequences of failing to do that might be.
It, instead, gives an open-ended directive and allows bureaucrats to fill in the gaps. Sound dangerous? Sounds dangerous to me.
The real danger of this legislation is we do not know what bureaucrats will do once empowered by Congress. We have made this mistake many a time in open-ended mandates, scare tactics, must-act, and we don't think before we act. And then all of a sudden, a year later, we are like: Oh, my goodness. We just ruined the entire economy--an AI-built economy--because we didn't even have a committee hearing about this.
The stifling effects of bureaucracy will be supercharged against AI. Empowering bureaucrats without any meaningful constraint on their power means that the promise of America leading the way--which we are leading the way toward better medical treatment, improved food production, a wealthier society, to name just a few potential benefits--will be under constant bureaucratic threat.
The risk of giving bureaucrats unfettered control over AI outweighs the benefits of imposing an immediate ill-thought mandate on AI companies.
My amendment would require the appointment of three Republicans and three Democrats to study how best to ensure the safety of AI and would require them to report back the solutions to the Commerce Committee, where they would be debated by Republicans and Democrats to make sure we don't do anything rash, to make sure we don't destroy something before it has a chance to even blossom.
Once we have studied this issue, we will be better positioned to make best choices regarding the future of this important technology.
Therefore, I ask that the consent be modified so that my amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; further, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to be reconsidered be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
I recognize the Senator from Louisiana.
Reserving the right to object, as much as I appreciate it, Senator Paul's amendment would replace my bill with his amendment.
And let me just say for the Record, and I mean this, I have great respect for Senator Paul. He is a really smart guy. He is a doctor, for God's sake.
But I also want to be clear. I would rather be required--I would rather be condemned to listening to OJ jokes for the rest of eternity than to replace my suggestion that we do something with a committee-- yet another committee--with a summit--yet another summit. Isn't that special? Let's form a committee. I get goosebumps thinking about it.
Let's form a committee comprised of consultants and experts, and we probably ought to throw in a few pop singers and movie stars that partied with Harvey Weinstein. Always good for a media show. Maybe we ought to let Leonardo DiCaprio chair the damn thing. That is right. Let's deal with this risk by appointing a committee.
You know what? My mama didn't raise a fool. And if she did, it was one of my brothers.
I mean no disrespect to my friend Senator Paul. I understand what he is trying to do, but he is not talking to Bambi's baby brother here.
A committee is a way to kill this. You can vote against my bill, you can object, but at least be intellectually honest and say: I don't want to do this. Don't appoint a committee. That is the weenie way out.
So, for that reason, Mr. Chairman, with all the respect I can muster, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the modification.
Is there objection to the original request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
