“I ask everyone to agree right now to take up two bills together. One is about leases in national parks, and the other is about transferring the Crystal Reservoir.”

“Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc: Calendar No. 638, S. 2498, the National Park System Long-Term Lease Investment Act; and Calendar No. 641, S. 2754, the Crystal Reservoir Conveyance Act.”

“I am asking the Senate to approve the changes to these bills and pass both of them right now without any debate.”

“Mr. President, I further ask that the committee-reported substitute amendments be agreed to; that the bills, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, all en bloc.”

“I object to passing this trade bill right now. Canada is an important ally, but it has unfair trade rules against our wood and timber. The Senate should not skip its normal rules to pass this. We need to debate it in my committee first.”

“Mr. President, this is not the first time, nor do I believe it will be the last. There have been multiple--and I mean multiple--efforts by my colleagues on the Democrat side to bypass regular order in the Senate and pass legislation without it being vetted as it properly should. It is true that we have some disagreements with Canada, although Canada is one of our best trading partners and one of our best allies, and I, for one, have worked very hard during my career to make sure we have strong relations with Canada. But Canada is engaged in tariff and nontariff trade barriers against the United States that President Trump is trying to resolve. Think lumber. Think timber. If we can simply get fair trade with Canada on these issues, we can resolve them. But the key point here is that doing so by asking to bypass the entire Senate process of developing legislation is not the approach. As chairman of the Finance Committee, which is the appropriate forum in which this debate on our trade policy should be held, I object to this unanimous consent request. I yield the floor.”

“I want the Senate to pass my bill right now to stop government fraud. Scammers steal more than $500 billion from federal programs every year. This bill will investigate suspicious payments, ban convicted fraudsters from getting federal money, and take back stolen funds. It could save taxpayers $240 billion.”

“Mr. President, while hard-working Americans are struggling to afford basic necessities, there is one class of people who have never had it better: fraudsters. Scammers are stealing more than $1.4 billion from taxpayers every day. Yesterday, I released a list of con artists who each fraudulently billed government programs for $1 billion or more. These billionaire bandits looted programs for the elderly, poor, disabled, and veterans to lavish themselves with million-dollar mansions, Rolex watches, expensive jewelry, and luxury cars. One fraudster brags: He ripped off Medicare for over a decade before getting turned in and said: Based upon the numbers, he isn’t lying. If grift were a government Agency, the ``Department of Fraud’’ would be the fifth largest. The $521 billion going to fraud every year exceeds the individual annual budgets of the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Transportation, Homeland Security, State, and Justice. That is right, folks--fraudsters are being better taken care of than our veterans and farmers. Fraud is not a victimless crime, either. In fact, it has far-reaching consequences. We have learned that taxpayer dollars stolen from the U.S. Small Business Administration financed the assassination--yes, you heard it right--the assassination of Haiti’s President in 2021. A team of Colombian mercenaries and their pistols, rifles, and tactical gear were all paid for with the support of $840,000 fraudulently obtained from the Small Business Administration. The political instability resulting from the assassination forced hundreds of thousands of Haitians to flee their nation, taking refuge in the United States. The Biden administration provided many of these migrants with food stamps and medical care--also paid for by American taxpayers. The inability to safeguard small business assistance resulted in taxpayers footing the bills for both the crime and its consequences. Many of these scams also involve identity theft that upends the lives of the unsuspecting Americans who then must suffer the consequences. For example, the Medicare number of a woman in California was stolen by scammers who used it to fraudulently bill for hospice care. When she sought physical therapy for an injury, Medicare denied her coverage because she was listed as dying in hospice. Think about that. The same government Agency that wouldn’t provide her with the healthcare she was promised approved and paid for bogus medical bills submitted by scammers using her information. Medicare exists to ensure folks like her receive medically necessary care, not to make billionaires out of fraudsters. Yet the identities and personal information of more than 1 million Americans have been stolen by Medicare mobsters to file phony healthcare claims. One illegal alien submitted at least $1.3 billion in fraudulent claims to Medicare and other health insurers, over just 6 months, using stolen identities. He laundered millions of the stolen tax dollars overseas to the Russian mob before some of his victims alerted Medicare that they were receiving notices for care and items they did not receive prescribed by doctors they had not visited. Another con artist orchestrated a billion-dollar fraud machine that used foreign call centers to submit bogus bills. He treated programs meant to care for the elderly, veterans, and servicemembers like his own personal cash register. From fake daycare centers to phony small businesses, the examples are absolutely endless, but the public’s patience is not. According to the latest Gallup poll, 9 out of 10 Americans say government corruption is widespread. That is a record high number. I challenge you to find any other issue where Democrats, Republicans, and Independents agree with each other more strongly. We owe it to all Americans to stop the government grift. My Protecting American Taxpayers Act would do just that by stopping government Agencies from handing out quick cash with no questions asked, triggering automatic investigations when there are sudden and suspicious spikes in payment claims, banning convicted fraudsters from receiving taxpayer dollars, taking back the money that was already stolen, and sending those darn scammers to the slammer. If enacted, this bill could save $240 billion. That is billion with a ``b,’’ folks. The choice is quite simple. Give the money to the fraudsters or return it to the taxpayers. What would really be criminal is if the Senate left town today without passing this meaningful legislation to eliminate fraud. As if in legislative session, and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 452, S. 4952. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.”

• 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 am disappointed that Senate Democrats blocked this bipartisan group of bills. These bills stop fraud against the government. They make sure people actually qualify for aid programs before getting money, so help goes to poor families, veterans, and the elderly instead of scammers.”

“Mr. President, I am sorely disappointed today that we were not able to pass this commonsense legislation. And we have seen, time and time again, actual examples being put forth in this body to demonstrate the grift of these scammers. And, unfortunately, we are not able to pass what is bipartisan legislation--a package of bills that has passed through many of the various committees here in the U.S. Senate--again, a bipartisan package that stops the grift and the scamming of the Federal Government. We held a committee hearing, not too long ago, where I had in front of me, in the Small Business Committee, a woman that came from Minnesota. She started off her testimony by saying: I am a Democrat, but I can’t stand by idly and watch as money is flowing out the door to the grifters. She gave very powerful testimony. She worked for the State government, and she saw the rampant fraud that was happening in Minnesota. She raised it to her supervisor. She raised the issue to those in charge, and she was told to be quiet and not question what was going on. It eventually led to her firing. But the problem was--and she brought it forward. She said: Every dollar that was being scammed that I identified, it was important to me that it get to the families that need it. Why? Because at one time, I had been part of one of those families. She grew up in a family that was poverty-stricken and filled with abuse. Their family relied on those dollars for their support and yet, as a grown adult, she saw scammers taking advantage of those programs that are meant for the elderly, for the veterans, for those that are struggling to break free from poverty. And what happened to her? She was fired. So this is commonsense legislation, checks and balances put on those programs. For everyone enrolling in those programs, we should check to make sure that they do qualify and meet Federal law and regulations. So, again, I am very disappointed that the Democrats have rejected this, again, a bipartisan package of bills meant to save our taxpayer dollars for people that are truly vulnerable. I am sorely disappointed. I yield the floor.”

“I want the Senate to pass this bill right now. It protects everyone from having their face or voice copied by AI without their permission. Websites would have to take these fake videos and voices down when told to do so. The bill still protects free speech, like the news, comedy, and reviews.”

“Mr. President, I come to the floor today to seek unanimous consent to pass Senator Coons’ and my bipartisan legislation, the NO FAKES Act. The NO FAKES Act provides landmark Federal protection for the voice and visual likeness of creators and all Americans. It would protect them from the proliferation of harmful, AI-generated deepfakes that are created without their consent. From artists and songwriters to students and everyday citizens, our Nation deserves meaningful protections against these harmful deepfakes. Our bill would establish clear guardrails that protect our creators in Tennessee and across the entire country. In addition to establishing a Federal intellectual property right in every American’s voice and visual likeness, we also provide for a clear notice-and-takedown framework, as well as safe harbor provisions for companies that comply. These provisions ensure that when a platform receives proper notice of a deepfake, that platform must promptly remove or disable access to the harmful content. If they promptly remove the content, they won’t face liability under the bill. Importantly, we have included explicit First Amendment protections in this bill. For example, we have excluded commentary, criticism, scholarship, satire, and parody content from being removed, as well as news and sports broadcast material. This legislation would protect artists while safeguarding creative uses for AI, which is why it has received endorsements from a wide range of stakeholders, including record labels, streaming platforms, AI companies, musical artists, and organizations involved in protecting our children and protecting dignity. At this point, I yield to my colleague for his comments.”

“Both parties worked together for years on this bill, and it protects free speech. I want the Senate to approve the updated bill right now without any objections.”

“I thank my colleague for his consistent work on this. He is so right. This has been something that we have worked on for years, and it is the result of so much bipartisan work and negotiation in explicitly putting in protections for free speech. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII and as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 446, S. 4591. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Signal 27 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“I want to protect artists from having their voices and images stolen with AI. But this bill does not do enough to protect free speech, like political jokes and parody. I do not want Big Tech companies deciding what counts as a joke. We should take a few weeks to fix this problem, and then we can pass the bill. For now, I object to passing it today.”

“Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to start by commending my colleagues and friends, Senator Blackburn and Senator Coons. They both are sincere and passionate about this bill, and they both worked hard. They worked a long time to protect artists and to protect creators, and I support that endeavor wholeheartedly. I want to see this bill pass. Indeed, in the Senate Judiciary Committee, I voted for this bill and expressed, at the time, that I wanted to see the bill pass. But I also said in the Senate Judiciary Committee that I was concerned that there were not sufficient free speech protections in the draft of the bill, as written, and that free speech parody and political parody needed to be more fully protected. There is a difference between stealing a country music star’s voice and using it for commercial purposes and engaging in political parody. For example, Spencer Pratt, when he ran for mayor of Los Angeles, had fantastic ads--made using AI--that parodied his political opponents. They were funny; they were effective. I don’t think anyone watching thought Karen Bass was actually a Batman villain from the ``Lego’’ movies, but people laughed, and they shared them, and they were effective communication. Likewise, President Trump has used AI for political communication. I don’t think anyone really believes that there was a flock of Canadian geese marching with machineguns. But, again, it was a powerful communication tool. So, at the markup, I expressed that I and my team were happy to work with both Senator Blackburn and Senator Coons to enhance the free speech protections so you are protecting legitimate free speech while going after the theft of someone’s right of publicity. One of my concerns about how this bill is drafted right now is that it would apply to satirical websites like the Babylon Bee or The Onion, and it leaves the decision as to whether someone’s use of a likeness falls within the exception--it creates an exception for what it calls bona fide parody, but it leaves it to Big Tech to make the decision as to whether it falls in that exception or not. And the use of a deepfake law to silence and punish political speech is not idle speculation. In fact, California lawmakers have already suggested that Pratt’s viral campaign ads could violate State deepfake rules. That, I think, is a real problem. So I will reiterate, and I will say also that I have no hesitation against strong legislation that stops deepfakes. Indeed, I am the author, along with Senator Klobuchar, of the only legislation Congress has passed regulating AI and prohibiting deepfakes, the TAKE IT DOWN law. I think that illustrates the sort of approach we should have in targeting a specific problem--in that instance, publishing explicit, nonconsensual, intimate images, either real or deepfakes. That is now a Federal felony, and there is now an obligation on tech platforms to remove that content. So I will repeat to my friends the commitment I made at markup: I am happy to work with you. I want this bill to pass, and I will suggest: Let’s take the next few weeks to have our staff work together to strengthen the free speech protections. Then we can come back here and pass this into law while fully protecting free speech. At least as of now, though, I object.”

“I want the Senate to pass this bill. It stops people from using your voice, face, or name online to scam or trick others, just like the law already does in the real world. We put in the free speech rules Senator Cruz asked for, and the bill still protects the news, parody, and political commentary. He should support it now.”

“Mr. President, it has been disappointing that the Senator’s staff chose not to accept the very language that he was wanting to see. We accepted that into the bill. May I read to you: So, if he thinks that he wants a candidate to be able to use certain images in political commentary in a nonharmful way, that is in there: That is language that is there. So, if he is wanting to do that, that language has been offered. He can solve this right now by putting his John Henry right there on that language. I would also remind my colleagues that there are laws against impersonation. If it is the physical world, you are not allowed to impersonate somebody to defraud them; with the intent to defraud or defame; with the intent to deceive people; with the intent to create a false identity. It is a felony. It is a felony. The problem is that it is not applied to the virtual space. There is a difference there. But you try to protect people in the virtual space and, all of a sudden, people want to say ``free speech.’’ So I would ask my colleagues: Are you opposed to any of the State laws that make it a felony offense to impersonate a person? Go to the bank. Drain their account. Show up at a place of employment, impersonating them. Try to grab their retirement account. Oh, there are laws for that. But, no, you can scam somebody all day long online and get by with it. You can actually show people, as my colleague from Delaware said, in different situations, doing different things, and they have no right-- no right--to protect their name, their image, their voice in the virtual space. I will contend that I disagree with my colleague from Texas. We have tried to work with his staff. We have tried to work with him. The NO FAKES Act does not chill First Amendment protected speech. We have worked with First Amendment legal experts in drafting the bill, and we are confident that it is First Amendment compliant. We have even doubled down on this language. Now there are States, including Tennessee, that already provide statutory protection against the misappropriation of a person’s name, voice, or likeness, and those statutes have been upheld. In addition, the stated goal of our bill is for courts--the courts-- to make decisions regarding First Amendment jurisprudence, not platforms. The platforms, thus, are not the arbiters for making First Amendment decisions. This is really helpful in preventing censorship of conservative speech online. This bill contains the necessary, broad exceptions for entire categories of speech--including news, public affairs, sports broadcasts, documentaries, biopics, commentary, including political commentary, criticism, scholarship, satire, and parody. This protects more than the First Amendment and much more than the only Supreme Court case on this subject, Zacchini v. Scripps. If someone believes their content that was removed from this bill was protected speech, they can submit a counternotice triggering judicial review within 14 days if the victim wants the material to stay down; otherwise, the content can go right back up. This ensures that any protected speech that is removed based on a notice stays down for a very short time while preventing platforms from engaging in censorship. As my colleague said, we have worked with groups for years to get this right. We have gotten it right. The protections that my colleague from Texas wanted to see included in the bill are there. This is legislation that should pass and make its way to the President’s desk to make certain that every American knows their name, their image, their likeness, their voice cannot be used in the virtual space for deception, for fraud, for personal harm. I yield the floor.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 9 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →