“Donald Trump and Senate Republicans are not taking artificial intelligence risks seriously. Republicans want data center rules to be optional, but we need real, mandatory limits. Republicans are also offering a weak bill on congressional stock trading. It lets members keep trading, and it includes strict voter ID rules designed to make sure it fails. I also want the White House to explain why at least $1.5 million in taxpayer money was used for Donald Trump's political ads. Finally, I want Republicans to vote with us to stop a Trump rule that ends health coverage for 2 million people and raises costs for many more.”

“Mr. President, well, Donald Trump is asleep at the wheel when it comes to reining in unchecked AI. Right after news came out over the weekend about rogue AI agents infiltrating government websites in the United States, Australia, and at the U.N., do you know what Trump told FOX News? ``I don’t worry about it.’’ Well, he is about the only one. Trump doesn’t worry about rogue AI, but the American people certainly do, so do cyber security experts and even many of the people who are building this technology. Everybody who knows anything about it worries about rogue AI--not Donald Trump. He keeps his head in the sand like an ostrich. He doesn’t pay any attention to the facts and just says whatever pops into his head, no matter how harmful it is. When Trump meets with various AI industry leaders at the White House today, he ought to stop resisting the growing consensus that we need real guardrails to mitigate AI’s risk. Trump’s meeting at the White House will be a flop, a failure, an utter failure if they don’t propose and start talking about and start to come to an agreement about some real guardrails that need to be done. And, of course, he should consult with those of us in Congress who believe we need stronger guardrails. Dismissing the potential dangers of AI as a hoax, as Trump has done over and over and over again, won’t protect the American people. The Senate GOP’s response to AI risk has been almost as meek as Trump’s. Americans are demanding real guardrails on AI and data centers, but all the Republicans offer is a toothless messaging bill. The bill is a fraud. I can sum up the shortcomings of the Republican data center bill with one word: optional. The bill is optional. America, do you hear that? Here, we need some real action on data centers. And what does the Republican Senator from Ohio come up with? Something that is optional. It is up to the companies to decide. Well, they are the ones that need the guardrails: optional--optional requirements in his bill on data center development, optional standards for safety against catastrophic risks, optional enforcement to protect the American people. A guardrail that is optional isn’t a guardrail at all. At a time when Americans are calling out for real guardrails on AI, Senate Republicans are trying to secure an ineffectual participation trophy before they skip town. Instead of trying to score cheap political points with hollow proposals, Senate Republicans need to work with us to take meaningful action that will actually contain these existential risks. They are not doing that, and the American people are in real danger because of their failure to act. Mr. President, on stock trading and voter ID, Senate Republicans continue to show the country they care more about playing partisan political games than stopping corruption. The Senate GOP has bucked a longstanding bipartisan effort to ban stock trading in Congress, which is what Congress should do. Last July--July--the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee advanced a strong, commonsense, bipartisan bill to ban congressional stock trading, but Senate Republicans abandoned this effort. Too many of their Members didn’t want to do it. If Senate Republicans truly cared about banning stock trading in Congress, they wouldn’t have let the House Republicans water down the ban. The bill Republicans are offering today is Swiss cheese legislating, creating loophole after loophole after loophole, and it is a step backward to solving this critical problem. The bill even lets Members continue to own and sell stocks. The Republican bill even lets Members continue to own and sell stocks. This is the Republican MO. The public is mad about a problem. The public wants something done. And what they do is put in a bill that does virtually nothing because they want to try to assuage the public but not solve the problem because it affects them. The Republican bill also explicitly allows Members to trade stocks in privately held companies to profit off their insider knowledge. So the bill makes things worse than present law because it would simply hide insider trading. It would not stop it. And if Senate Republicans cared about reining in stock trading, they would advance a bill that prohibits the President from trading stocks. We know that Trump has traded more stocks than all of Congress combined, but this bill does no such thing. The worst part of this bill is that Republicans know it will never pass. They designed it that way. They don’t want this bill to become law. So they put a poison pill in that they knew would tank it. It is really trickery. It is skulduggery. If Republican Senators really cared about stopping stock trading by Members, they wouldn’t have loaded it up with a poison pill voter ID bill, which Senate Democrats have defeated already twice. Republicans know that no one in their right mind would ever go along with the draconian voting restrictions that they attach to their stock trading bill. The voting restriction provisions in this bill are more severe than any law in any State--do you hear that?--more severe than any law in any State. They are designed to kill the bill. So this bill is just another desperate Republican attempt to pretend they are fighting corruption, when all they really want is to score political points before they head home to campaign. Mr. President, on Trump propaganda, Donald Trump continues to cram his taxpayer-funded propaganda down the throats of the American people. In less than a single week, Trump has aired three campaign ads, costing at least $1.5 million, all paid for by--guess who--the American taxpayer. Trump is getting you, American taxpayer, to use your dollars to pay for his political ads. Have you ever heard anything so egregious in terms of how our system is supposed to work? I am calling on the White House to explain this great, blatantly corrupt, and egregious abuse of taxpayer dollars immediately. The Trump administration has a lot of questions it needs to answer: Who is responsible for these ads? Which Agency? Where were the funds diverted to pay for Trump’s propaganda? Was Trump involved personally? There has already been some reporting from anonymous sources that Trump was personally involved in pushing these campaign ads on the taxpayers’ dime. Let’s be clear, these ads were anything but public service announcements. They were pure propaganda. After fawning over foreign authoritarians like Putin and Kim Jong Un for so long, Trump must have gotten jealous of their control over state TV. Trump needs to answer for this corruption and for all of his other efforts to rob the American people to fund his extravagant vanity projects. It is time for Republicans to either call the President out for this corruption or to call it quits in November. Mr. President, finally, on the Affordable Care Act CRA, well, today Senate Democrats will force consideration of a resolution to stop Trump from further sabotaging the ACA. Trump’s recent rule terminates coverage for 2 million Americans. It jacks up healthcare costs for millions more and gives big insurers carte blanche to force the American people to pay more for less. As if Americans weren’t drowning enough in Trump’s failed economy, this callous rule comes on the heels of Trump and Republicans ransacking over $1 trillion--$1 trillion--from the healthcare system, all to bankroll tax breaks for billionaires and big corporations. Now rural hospitals are shuttering, millions are losing lifesaving coverage, and tens of millions of working Americans are watching their premiums double, triple, even quadruple. For years, Trump has tried to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act with no idea of what replacement will look like whatsoever. As Trump’s economy bleeds the American people dry, Trump isn’t trying to lower costs but, rather, kill the Affordable Care Act with a death by a thousand cuts. So my Republican colleagues ought to join us on this resolution to protect the care their constituents rely on or they will continue to own every lost healthcare policy, every closed hospital, and every skyrocketing premium that follows. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Graham). The Senator from Virginia.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Respect 96 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “Trump must have gotten jealous of their control over state TV”.

  See full analysis →

“I want the Senate to pass basic safety rules for artificial intelligence right now. AI will change the world more than the internet did, but we cannot trust tech companies to police themselves. Without basic rules, an AI accident could disrupt jobs, shut down hospitals, or hurt our financial system. We need required testing before new models come out, secure test areas, and a system to report serious problems.”

“Madam President, I think most of us in this Chamber realize that we are literally living through one of the most consequential technology moments in our lifetime, and that is why I am here with several of my colleagues--Senator Schatz from Hawaii and Senator Kim from New Jersey--to say that we can’t, frankly, have regular business at this moment. You know, before I got into politics, I was in the technology field. I was lucky enough to be on the ground floor of the wireless industry and then became a venture capitalist and was involved in iterations around the internet and cloud computing. I can say without reservation that as big as wireless was, as big as the internet is, as big as cloud computing is, they will pale in comparison to the innovation that will come about through artificial intelligence. In many ways, the reason I chose to ask the people of Virginia to hire me one last time was because, having spent an enormous amount of time on this subject, I am enormously concerned that we get AI right, that it is safe and it is fair, that America leads in AI innovation. Over the last year and a half or so, 2 years, I have spoken on this subject repeatedly. I have laid out my ideas on how we ought to have a comprehensive approach--legislation on data centers that would actually, if they don’t meet minimum Federal standards, would impose their inability to get a bonus tax depreciation. I have plans in terms of how we ought to be dealing with child safety. If you think social media messed up your kids, wait until your teenage daughter or son thinks they have an affinity or a relationship with a chatbot. How ironic that China has already prohibited that. We are seeing increasingly the use of AI agents. Well, who bears the liability? I have some ideas there. National security. When Mythos came out from Anthropic, our head of NSA and Cyber Command said that this tool will change warfare as much as drones. Finally, I continue to be enormously concerned that while AI may create jobs long term, in the short run, in the next 2 to 5 years, I think we will have an enormous disruption in our workforce. I will make a wager with anyone that I hope I will lose that we could see up to 30 percent of recent college grad unemployment as companies try to integrate the productivity gains from AI, and they are simply not going to hire as many folks going forward. So I remain an AI optimist. I am not an AI doomer. But we are at a moment in time, looking over the last few weeks, where I think the whole world has recognized that we have to do something. When AI companies, one after another, come out and say ``We have to elevate safety and put that first and foremost,’’ when OpenAI just yesterday said they are slowing the model on Astra, when Anthropic has said they are trying to build in more safety protocols--I think that is good, but are we really going to trust the industry to self-police on something that, if it goes beyond what is happening--and we have already seen not tens but literally thousands of examples where these models go beyond what humans want them to do, the most famous being the OpenAI Hugging example, where 3,000 bots jumped the sandbox fence, attacked another company, and then came back and attacked OpenAI. Literally, during that period, they communicated with each other, hid their intent from human beings, would sacrifice some of the bots for the greater cause, and we are doing nothing? That was July. In August, they had 10,000 bots collaborate. So we three--and there are a lot of Senators on both sides of the aisle who I think are enormously concerned who said that we will all have time to debate all of our--I don’t want to use the term my friend from Hawaii will use, but pet rocks--I hope he will use it again--and say that we all have great ideas here, but we should not miss the moment to put a safety protocol in place now. As we leave, if the Congress goes out and, God forbid, we have an incident--AI is already suspect by most Americans--we could actually see the stop of innovation if an AI tool took over a hospital or a water system. I am not an AI doomer, but the ability to have these AI agents take over and shut down part of the financial system is real. We should heed the call from the experts. I think you will also see shortly--the finance world has said we need mandatory controls. I think you will see other large businesses say so as well. We need to make sure whatever safety board we put in place doesn’t ensconce the already largest frontier labs. Our request is really simple. It has been as pared down as possible. Before these models are released, they should be pretested to make sure, secondly, that the sandboxes where they do the testing have appropriate cyber protocols, that even before you start testing, there is at least a basic safety policy. And these companies welcome this. And God forbid we have an incident, we have to have an incident reporting mechanism. No more, no less. We would house this at NIST. The safety board would have to include, obviously, where the expertise is--the frontier models. I actually think it would be good to have an international validator--somebody like the British--on it as well. They have an AI safety institute. We could actually guarantee to the rest of the world that our models are safe. So let’s not get involved--this is not a partisan issue. I think the chairman of the Commerce Committee is coming down. We have worked with him. We look forward to working with him further. But let’s go ahead and put a statement in place that we in the U.S. Senate recognize the enormous upside of much AI, but there is also a downside. With that, Madam President, I would like to yield to my colleague, the Senator from Hawaii.”

“We need to pass our bill to make artificial intelligence safer. Humans must stay in control of this technology. We cannot trust tech companies to regulate themselves when they are trying to make huge profits. We cannot pass a giant law right now, but this small bill will lower the real danger of something terrible happening. We should not delay it.”

“Madam President, you know, this is about a couple of very simple questions. The first question is, Humans in control of technology or not? That is the first question. Even the mechanisms that we are accustomed to, for instance, in aviation, where you say ``Before this plane can take off, we have to certify to its safety,’’ don’t really get at the fundamental problem because what we have is technology that is equivalent to a plane being able to take off on its own while it is still being built. So the question is first, Humans in control or not? The second question is, If we agree that humans should be in control, should this be voluntary or not? Do we trust--not any individual CEO or board of directors, but do we trust that companies that are rolling toward the biggest IPOs in human history will voluntarily regulate themselves as opposed to maximize the value of that IPO, maximize shareholder profit? We have traditionally tried to strike the right balance, and Democrats and Republicans don’t always see the sort of level of regulation necessary on an eye-to-eye basis, but I think at some level, there are 100 of us who believe that when it comes to serious risk to public safety, that those should not be voluntary safety regimes. They should be mandatory. They should be Federal. It shouldn’t be every legislature. It shouldn’t be some announcement from a bunch of tech CEOs. It has to be in Federal statutory law. Now, the third question is, Should we do this comprehensively or not? The answer, in my view, is not--not right now. Here is why. We don’t have the capacity to pass a very complicated law to deal with all of the societal and economic and human impacts of the AI revolution. We are not going to do that with the House out of town. We are not going to do that with the Speaker of the House being sort of so skeptical of any policymaking in this space that he basically left town to avoid dealing with this. So what we have is the most modest but most serious proposal to take down the acute risk that we are being told by the labs and by AI safety experts and others really does exist. We could have an argument about ``Is it a 10-percent chance of a terrible thing happening or a 1-percent chance of a terrible thing happening? How much time do we have?’’ but I think nobody is disagreeing that the risk is nonzero of something terrible happening if we don’t have a basic architecture of these labs having to not just test before they commercially upload something but to have a safety regime from the very beginning because, as we now have learned, this is a unique kind of product that could become dangerous even before it is released to the public. So the question is, Comprehensive versus not--and as much as Senator Warner and I talk about our pet rocks--I have a bunch of bills in the AI space that are important. Of course, I think mine are the best. I am sure Senator Kim and Senator Warner think theirs are the best. But the point is, we are not going to come to a resolution on this. This bill is trying to thread that needle of being nonpartisan, on the level, not a setup, not designed as an electoral bludgeon but simply to try to take down the acute risk that is right in front of us. So that is why we are trying to be modest enough to actually be able to look the Commerce Committee chairman in the eye and say: There are no tricks or traps here. This is what we have come to conclude is the safest way forward in the very short run. It also doesn’t preclude Senator Cruz and Leader Thune and Senator Klobuchar and others from legislating in this space because there is lots more to do, but right now, we are facing something rather precipitous. The other question is, Are we going to do something after something terrible happens or not? I think that we have an opportunity to tee up legislation that takes down--that doesn’t reduce to zero--but that takes down the risk of something really horrifying happening to people in the United States of America. So this is about humans in control, this is about keeping politics out of it, and this is about taking down the short-term risk of something really terrible happening. To the extent that it is possible in this polarized time and in this election season, we tried like heck to display enough discipline on our own to not introduce a bunch of stuff that was going to freak a bunch of other people out. I actually haven’t heard of any substantive disagreements with what we are proposing--I am sure they exist--but in terms of Member interaction, in terms of the expert community, in terms of my Republican colleagues, people aren’t saying: I hate this bill. I have an ideological objection to it. It won’t work. They are not saying that. They are just saying: We are doing another process and give that time. And my judgment is that we don’t have the luxury of time. You know, the Senate is supposed to be the cooling saucer that allows the hot liquid from the House to cool off, and then we can deliberate, right? Well, the House is out of town, and they did not send us anything to drink. So that is a lovely way to understand this body, but we are all that is left, and we have to work on a nonpartisan--forget bipartisan--on a nonpartisan basis to make sure that humans remain in control of the technology. With that and with the permission of the Senator from Virginia, I yield to my friend the junior Senator from New Jersey who knows more about national security and who is, I think, appropriately alarmed at the potential impacts of inaction in the U.S. Senate.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 6 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I want the Senate to pass this bill to set safety rules for artificial intelligence. We cannot just trust tech companies to police themselves. Right now, no one even knows how many safety problems these companies have had. We need real rules, safe testing spaces, and a safety board to keep this technology under control.”

“Madam President, I thank my colleagues Senator Warner and Senator Schatz. This is really an invitation to all of our colleagues to be able to join us in this moment because this is a call from the American people to address their worries, to avoid disaster, and to give them a sense of stability and predictability. Yes, this effort we are putting forward today is not going to fix all of the problems; it is not going to avoid all of the pitfalls, but it is a start, and that is what the American people are looking for. They are looking for a start. They are looking for action that we are taking not just in words but in recognizing, yes, innovation without control just leads to chaos and leads to unpredictability. That is something that we need to make sure we are meeting at this moment to ensure that the American people have control over the incredible strides that we are seeing on AI. Now, control can’t be built on faith and half measures. Just yesterday, we saw again OpenAI saying that they are not going to release their newest model Astra because of security concerns. We have seen other major labs take some steps to mitigate. That is progress, but the stakes are too high for this to be just voluntary that big corporations take the right action just because it is the right thing to do. When I was working in national security, the starting point of every conversation was, ``What is the magnitude of the problem that we are facing?’’ and then to be able to work backward from there to understand what the magnitude is of the solution needed to actually address that problem. Well, when I did a townhall 2 weeks ago, I had a constituent come up and ask me--because I was talking about the Hugging Face incident or some of the other news that we had seen of rogue AI agents breaking out. This one constituent asked me, he said: Well, how many times has this happened? How many times? Are we documenting it? How many times have we actually seen this? Look, the answer that I had to give, truthfully, was that we didn’t know. Even still, today, we are standing here on the floor of the Senate, and we don’t know how many of these types of instances have happened. I will be honest with you, I don’t think the top AI companies fully know the total number of incidents and other challenges that they have faced. So when they have the question: What is the magnitude of the problem we are trying to solve, the answer right now is that we don’t know. That is scary, that is worrisome, and that is something we should work incredibly hard to be able to address. Do we know just how much the move toward full recursive self- improvement is going to magnify these problems? We don’t know yet, which is why we are trying to set out, with the effort today, to recognize that the stakes are too high and that control comes from creating efforts like an AI safety board or in establishing more secure sandboxes for testing and other types of standards. Control is necessary because we need to ensure that the technology does not outpace safety and common sense. I am grateful, again, to be working with my colleagues here and, again, to be, hopefully, working with all of our colleagues together on this shared agenda. That is what the American people are not just asking of us but are demanding of us to be able to do so that this bill can be part of a comprehensive approach that will help us maintain control and avoid the chaos that no American wants to see. With that, I yield to the Senator from Virginia.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 3 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I want the Senate to pass this bill right now. It creates safety rules and testing standards for artificial intelligence. We cannot trust AI companies to police themselves, and we cannot leave the rules up to individual states. If we do not make AI safe, the public will turn against it, and China will get ahead of us.”

“Madam President, in a moment, I am going to ask for a UC. I appreciate that the chairman of the Commerce Committee is here as it is in his jurisdiction, and he has been working on this issue. Congratulations on his legislative success last night. To address, kind of, a little bit of what Senator Kim just mentioned, we don’t know. What we do know is that the ChatGPT model that has already been released and is out in service has literally had thousands of times where it has gone beyond what the model was supposed to have done. I completely don’t think we can solve this State by State. Yesterday, Florida sued ChatGPT in kind of a very red State with a very Republican attorney general’s taking, you know, an almost the-sky-is-falling approach. We are trying to say--you know, I am pro-AI here, but if we lose this moment--I have never seen an innovation that could be so positive but be viewed so negatively by the public at this point, particularly by young people. So we are just saying: Let’s put a safety board in place. We have to recognize things where we don’t empower the existing incumbents, but I think we can do that. We are saying: Release testing. Make sure the sandboxes are safe on cyber protocols. Make sure there is a safety protocol that goes back even before testing, and make sure, after--God forbid--an incident, that there is an incident report. Again, I would echo what my colleagues have said. You know, I have not talked to a single Member on either side of the aisle who doesn’t think we need to move. I don’t think the option of simply relying on the good will of these companies will be enough. If we are not able to move forward today, I commit to continuing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle because I think there is, frankly, no issue more important. If we don’t get safety rights and all of the things about workforce or agent liability or national security, which has to be dealt with, we may miss. That would be the worst. If Americans turn against this innovation and say: We are going to stop it across the board, nothing would be better for China, and we don’t want that to happen. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the Artificial Intelligence Risk Management and Security Act, which is at the desk; 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.”

“We need required safety rules for artificial intelligence, and we need a safety board that can act fast. The companies making this technology admit it has already crossed lines thousands of times. If a major disaster happens because we did not put safety first, the public will turn against this technology. We must make these safety rules mandatory right now.”

“Madam President, I thank the Senator, and I look forward to working with him. In terms of the composition of the safety board, that is where the rubber hits the road. You have to acknowledge that the frontier model has got most of the expertise. I think we all share a deep commitment, and as the chair and vice chair of the Intelligence Committee for the last decade, I have been calling out the CCP and their approach to technology that is just not in AI but across the board. But I still--and I defer to my colleagues--feel like, my gosh, we are going to look pretty darned silly if something happens, and the American people turn dramatically against this technology because we didn’t put safety first. Literally, the commercial ChatGPT model out there has created thousands--and this is not my word; it is the ChatGPT management’s--of incidences where it has gone beyond what it was supposed to do. Literally, almost all of the members of the Anthropic company have said this something we need to address. We have to do this with urgency. I look forward to working with the chairman. We have got to make it mandatory. We have got to make it safe. And, clearly, how that Board is constructed--and it has to be able to move very, very quickly. I am not sure that the traditional judicial process could move that way, but I thank the chairman. I don’t know if my colleagues wanted to have a closing note as well.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 4 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I want us to pass a law that requires safety and cybersecurity rules for advanced AI. I am willing to change the details of the bill, such as who runs the safety board or how fast it works. But safety rules must be mandatory, not voluntary. AI does not have feelings or values. It is just powerful technology, and we need strong rules to stop dangerous accidents before they happen.”

“Madam President, I am mildly encouraged. I, obviously, would rather he not object, but I am encouraged by the potential for common ground here. Composition of Boards, what the mechanism is for ensuring safety is something that I personally don’t have religion on. The question at hand is: Should we have some sort of mandatory safety and cyber security regime, and how do we stand up something that is quick enough to deal with the hastening pace of this technology and the abundant evidence now that some of these AIs are escaping human control? Look, I am always ready to modify something. If the Secretary of the Commerce Department shouldn’t be the person in charge of determining the AI safety standards, that this should take 2 weeks rather than 6 months, you know, I am very openminded. But the threshold question is: Should this be voluntary or mandatory? And if you are saying you are open to some sort of mandatory regime with the caveats that you have expressed, I think that is progress. I will make one final point. I think we get a little hung up on anthropomorphizing the tech itself, including this idea that the values are going to be imbued in the AI. The AI gets given a task. It doesn’t have ideas of its own. It doesn’t have thoughts of its own. It doesn’t have consciousness. It doesn’t have feelings. And so this idea that we are going to have American, patriotic, liberty-loving AI and they are going to have the other kind I think is a misunderstanding of what we are actually talking about right now, which is we actually just want normal cyber security controls for this incredibly powerful tech. And the cyber security controls are going to have to be more robust than ever, but, like, that does not seem at all inconsistent with American values. And if you want us to win the AI race--the quickest way to lose it is to allow a terrible incident to happen without any Federal guardrails, and then I think, figuratively speaking, the pitchforks will be coming.”

“I want the Senate to pass artificial intelligence safety bills before the end of the year. America can lead the world in technology and keep it safe at the same time. Other countries will only use our technology if they can trust that it is safe.”

“Madam President, I will be quick here. I just want to say I hope we can be able to take this step and continue to move on. And as someone who is on the Commerce Committee, wanted to find ways to be able to engage. I agree on the importance of America leading the innovation of the future, but I don’t think that that competition, especially vis-a-vis China, is mutually exclusive with the need to be able to engage with safety and security. We have pieces of the legislation, things that I have been pushing, like the MATCH Act, that are about us being able to further strengthen our innovative lead, and I hope that this body does take those measures up, as we have them before us in this very Congress. Within the end of the year, we can move forward on those types of steps. But as we are engaged in this, it is not just about the United States. It is not just about China. It is about our ability to proliferate this technology all over the world. And whether or not all of these other countries are going to be choosing our technology or someone else’s is going to depend on its performance and whether or not it carries risk. So us being able to do this isn’t just about showing the American people that we have something safe and secure, it is about a product that we hope the rest of the world will very much engage on and be using and driving American innovation as well as American prosperity going forward. So that is something that, again, I hope we can work on together. I yield the floor.”

• Unsupported
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Reasoning 33 of 100

  This statement drew 3 conclusions, but gave no reasons for 2 of them.

  See full analysis →