About this transcript: This is a full AI-generated transcript of US Congress LIVE: Whitehouse Accuses DOJ Of Epstein Cover-Up, Targets Blanche Over Trump Docs from Hook Global, published July 10, 2026. The transcript contains 24,419 words with timestamps and was generated using Whisper AI.
"it would be a collusion between the Department of Justice lawyers and Trump's private lawyers. So there's another reason for the Department of Justice to have responded. What happened last Friday? No response from the Department of Justice. First ever accusation of senior level Department of..."
[0:00] it would be a collusion between the Department of Justice
[0:02] lawyers and Trump's private lawyers.
[0:06] So there's another reason for the Department of Justice
[0:10] to have responded.
[0:11] What happened last Friday?
[0:13] No response from the Department of Justice.
[0:15] First ever accusation of senior level
[0:18] Department of Justice people of fraud upon the court
[0:22] with an invitation to rebut the allegations,
[0:24] an invitation specific to Department of Justice conduct,
[0:31] and they duck.
[0:33] So that is going to continue.
[0:36] The three dozen judges have their answer this Friday,
[0:39] and then the court will go forward.
[0:41] I will contend that we don't look like much
[0:44] if that information is being developed in a federal courtroom
[0:48] and we haven't been allowed to ask questions,
[0:50] and indeed our oversight has been collapsed
[0:53] into a confirmation hearing.
[0:55] I have never seen a Department of Justice
[0:57] as badly run as this one.
[1:00] I've never seen fraud upon the court allegations.
[1:03] I've never seen so many suggestions of contempt.
[1:06] I've never seen so many no true bills.
[1:08] I've never seen so many cases thrown out.
[1:11] I've never seen so many accusations that Department arguments were false,
[1:15] were pretextual, were designed to fool rather than inform the court.
[1:19] And we see that over and over again from judges appointed by every president.
[1:24] It is now at the point where the Department of Justice and the U.S. government have lost their presumption of regularity in federal court proceedings.
[1:33] All of this matters.
[1:37] All of this is something to which this committee should be paying attention.
[1:42] And with respect to what our chairman has said about the norms of the committee,
[1:47] well, one norm is that U.S. attorneys come through this committee after a process of consultation
[1:56] before they get to run U.S. attorney's office.
[2:00] Over and over again, we see these slippery deals where acting U.S. attorneys are appointed,
[2:09] and then the first assistant is fired, and when the time runs out on the acting U.S. attorney,
[2:17] they slip back into the first attorney position and leave a vacancy.
[2:22] We see it's an obvious scam to get around this committee's norms.
[2:29] And we have put up with this.
[2:31] It didn't happen once. It didn't happen twice.
[2:33] It has happened over and over and over and over again.
[2:37] And on top of that, we've seen U.S. attorneys called out for misconduct over and over and over again.
[2:45] None of this is normal. None of this is normal.
[2:50] And the fact that this committee won't look into it, I think, is a shame.
[2:55] And I think if we try to be complicit in failing in our duty to look into this
[3:00] by combining the Blanche nomination hearing with the Department of Justice oversight hearing,
[3:05] we will have made a very, very grave mistake.
[3:09] I know that the chairman is sympathetic to the oversight problems that we face here
[3:16] and the degree to which this department's behavior is exceptional.
[3:20] And I look forward to having those hearings go forward in a way that reflects
[3:26] the chairman's consistent desires for real oversight.
[3:30] And I hope that the proceedings reflect that.
[3:33] You know, one I worked together with the leaders of this bill, Senator Coons and Senator Blackburn,
[3:39] and I want to thank them from the very beginning.
[3:42] This builds on some of the work that Senator Cruz and I did on the Take It Down Act,
[3:47] which is now signed into law.
[3:48] And the provision requiring the platforms to take down non-consensual images in 48 hours
[3:55] is now actually in effect, as well as the increased penalties for the people that post the illegal images.
[4:04] And I think this is a huge step forward and a model that we should be using in many contexts.
[4:10] And while this law that we did before, the No Fakes Act, focused on the non-consensual images
[4:19] and puts the rules of the road to give people control over digital replicas of their voice and likeness,
[4:25] this goes to something that we know has been a real, real problem.
[4:30] It's important we pass this bill because it is easier than ever to use AI tools to generate everything
[4:37] from images and videos, songs, recordings, and even Senate hearings.
[4:43] In fact, Senator Blackburn and I held a hearing on privacy that was actually a great subcommittee
[4:51] hearing. We walked out of there thinking this is so good, maybe we can find a compromise on this.
[4:55] And a day later I saw an image of myself and I thought, oh wow, this thing is getting so much
[5:01] attention. It was me and she was sitting next to me and my staff was behind me.
[5:06] And it was actually an AI image. Now that might have been considered parody.
[5:10] I didn't think it was very funny with what they said.
[5:13] They somehow put me in the middle of the Sydney Sweeney jeans campaign issue.
[5:18] But it was startling as I looked at my feed and finally the
[5:21] platforms either took it down or put digitally altered on it.
[5:26] A number of people believed that they believed I used language that I would never use in this
[5:31] hearing room. They believed I said things that I would never say. And to me, it was an example
[5:36] of how quickly these things can go viral. So what happened here, and by the way, if it is
[5:43] parody, I believe it should have another piece of legislation that says that it should say digitally
[5:48] altered. So technology led to incredible things. Last year, we did an event, the four of us with
[5:54] Randy Travis, who lost his ability to sing after having a stroke. And using AI replicas of his own
[6:02] voice, he's been able to continue putting up music. But that's because it's his voice. It's his decision.
[6:08] Easy access to this technology has created real challenges that harm real people. Sony Music has
[6:14] identified more than 135,000 songs with unauthorized deepfakes on streaming services. So, so much of
[6:22] what our country is based on and our innovation and our economy is based on ideas, innovation, people's
[6:29] intellectual products, their own creations. And if we mess around with this with AI and don't reward them
[6:37] for that, we're going to mess around with our entire economy. It isn't just artists. Consumers lost more
[6:43] than $3.5 billion through imposter schemes. And so that's why this bill is so important. Everyone
[6:50] should have the right to privacy and the right to control their own voice and their own likeness.
[6:56] And I'll just end by thanking the consumer artists, entertainment, labor, tech stakeholders that have
[7:03] come together to support this bill. You must know something's going right, Senator Blackburn, when you can
[7:08] announce that you have the American Medical Association and SAG Act supporting the same
[7:13] bill. It's just a, usually these interests don't align on something. It's not like they're opposed,
[7:18] but it just shows the broad coalition that supports doing something about this challenging and growing
[7:25] problem. Thank you. Before Senator Padilla and then Senator Cruz. This is an extraordinarily ill-motivated
[7:34] candidate for the judiciary who has expressly said it's not his intention to follow the law,
[7:40] but rather to impose his view of what he calls traditional Western values. He has derided textualism
[7:47] and indeed said a court that correctly decides cases on narrow grounds without upsetting long set but badly
[7:57] flawed precedents will not be much use. That is unacceptable for the conservative movement of today.
[8:05] In his own words, he will use his seat on the bench to impose his view of traditional Western values,
[8:13] to press for the conservative movement of today, and will avoid and indeed seems to mock the notion of
[8:21] correctly deciding cases on narrow grounds. Textualism and minimalism used to be conservative values.
[8:29] This does not provide that. The clerk will call the roll on flowers.
[8:33] Flag for my colleagues that this individual represents President Trump personally in his appeal of the 34
[8:40] felony convictions for falsifying business records related to his payments to Stormy Daniels and also in
[8:48] the $464 million judgment against Trump and his family members in his business for inflated value of
[8:55] business assets. The president still owes the firm $400,000 evidently and notwithstanding the chairman's
[9:03] comments earlier about following norms, no blue slip from either of the New York senators. I urge a no vote.
[9:09] The clerk will call the roll on Schwartz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to offer my strong support for the
[9:16] No Fakes Act today. Throughout my time in Congress, I've proudly represented the creative capital of the
[9:21] world and I've always believed that our creative economy and hundreds of thousands of hard-working
[9:27] people behind it deserve strong protections for their talents, voices, and likeness which make up the
[9:32] foundation of their livelihoods. But in the advent of AI, those livelihoods as well as the identities
[9:37] of everyday Americans are under threat. The rapid advancement of generative AI has brought incredible
[9:43] innovation but it's also unleashed a wave of unauthorized exploitation. We see this in the
[9:49] voices and visual likenesses of individuals from celebrities to children being replicated and weaponized
[9:56] without their permission and sometimes without their knowledge. That is why I've long supported the No
[10:02] Fakes Act. This legislation, backed by a wide coalition, establishes a clear federal right protecting all
[10:08] individuals from unauthorized digital replicas. The performers and voice actors who power a country's
[10:15] greatest cultural export deserve to know that their faces and voices won't be used to replace them.
[10:21] In order to protect human creativity and prevent against worse exploitation, I urge my colleagues to
[10:27] support this bill and I yield back. Chairman, I'm in this seat this morning
[10:35] because Illinois Senator Durbin was a close friend of Illinois Senator Obama and then U.S. President Obama and
[10:49] today in a star-studded celebration the Obama Presidential Library is going to open and Senator Durbin very,
[10:59] very much wanted to be there. I think he is exactly where he should be and that leaves me to
[11:06] fill in for him today. I'd like to take my time this morning to suggest that combining our oversight
[11:19] hearing of the Department of Justice with the nominations hearing for Acting Attorney General Blanche
[11:29] would be a grave mistake for the committee. I don't believe we did that with Attorney General Garland
[11:39] and I think the record of the Department of Justice under Todd Blanche lends itself to very vigorous
[11:51] oversight. Oversight which we have been denied because when we ask questions we get scripted litanies of
[12:03] insult and quarrel rather than actual answers to our questions. When we ask for documents and records in
[12:12] writing we get nothing we are reduced to filing FOIA requests that are then not even complied with as FOIA
[12:21] requests. So the oversight function of this committee is really I think being systematically disabled.
[12:32] That's particularly significant when you have Attorney General Bondi saying that it was
[12:38] Todd Blanche who was responsible for the Epstein files disaster. The releases of private information
[12:48] and images of victims, the cover-up of documents that named Donald Trump, and just the general incompetence of
[13:00] the whole wretched mess. I don't think that it would be a good idea for this committee to be complicit in covering up
[13:13] the cover-up of the Epstein files. Move on to the slush fund which a great number of my Republican
[13:23] colleagues have expressed real reservations about with its attachment of a tax amnesty deal for Trump,
[13:31] the Trump family, and the Trump businesses. There are very legitimate questions to be asked about that,
[13:39] including has that cockamamie idea really been withdrawn or is it just being hidden briefly so it can resurface
[13:50] in some other fashion. We should be looking into this as a committee. It's important stuff and even if we
[14:00] shirk our duties at looking into all of this, it appears that a Florida court is going to be looking into
[14:08] all of this and I think it's a bad look for the committee to be turning a blind eye to what went into
[14:14] the slush fund deal and the tax amnesty deal and then discover through a court proceeding in Florida
[14:23] all the stuff that we failed to look at. It's hard to be taken seriously if we have failed to do our own
[14:31] duty and then the court proceedings reveal the mischief. I will say that I've looked, I have never ever heard
[14:45] of senior officials of the Department of Justice being called before a court with respect to a fraud
[14:55] upon the court. Look up fraud upon a court. It's a pretty serious charge. This one was brought, raised,
[15:05] I guess I should say by 36, three dozen retired federal judges, some very, very respected ones,
[15:10] some very, very conservative ones and the judge in the proceeding in Florida out of which the slush fund
[15:18] settlement emerged reopened the case to have a look. She asked for responses. She suggested that the DOJ
[15:32] might have violated its own policies in the settlement. She suggested that there was an IRS defense memo out
[15:39] there that would be relevant to the proceedings. The violation of DOJ policies would obviously be
[15:48] a matter for DOJ to answer. The IRS client memo would obviously be something for DOJ to answer. She also
[15:59] questioned whether there was collusion. It takes two to collude. It would be a collusion between the
[16:05] Department of Justice lawyers and Trump's private lawyers. So there's another reason for the Department of
[16:13] Justice to have responded. What happened last Friday? No response from the Department of Justice.
[16:20] First ever accusation of senior level Department of Justice people of fraud upon the court with an
[16:26] invitation to rebut the allegations, an invitation specific to Department of Justice conduct, and they
[16:35] duck. So that is going to continue. The three dozen judges have their answer this Friday and then the
[16:43] court will go forward. I will contend that we don't look like much if that information is being developed
[16:51] in a federal courtroom and we haven't been allowed to ask questions and indeed our oversight has been
[16:56] collapsed into a confirmation hearing. I have never seen a Department of Justice as badly run as this one.
[17:04] I've never seen fraud upon the court allegations. I've never seen so many suggestions of contempt.
[17:10] I've never seen so many no true bills. I've never seen so many cases thrown out. I've never seen so many
[17:16] accusations that department arguments were false, were pretextual, were designed to fool rather than
[17:22] inform the court. And we see that over and over again from judges appointed by every president. It is
[17:29] now at the point where the Department of Justice and the U.S. government have lost their presumption of
[17:35] regularity in federal court proceedings. All of this matters. All of this is something to which this
[17:43] committee should be paying attention. And with respect to what our chairman has said about the norms of
[17:50] the committee, well one norm is that U.S. attorneys come through this committee after a process of
[17:59] consultation before they get to run U.S. attorney's office. Over and over again we see these slippery deals
[18:10] where acting U.S. attorneys are appointed and then the first assistant is fired and when the time runs
[18:19] out on the acting U.S. attorney they slip back into the first attorney position and leave a vacancy. It's an
[18:27] obvious scam to get around this committee's norms. And we have put up with this. It didn't happen once,
[18:36] it didn't happen twice. It has happened over and over and over and over again. And on top of that we've
[18:42] seen U.S. attorneys called out for misconduct over and over and over again. None of this is normal. None
[18:52] of this is normal. And the fact that this committee won't look into it I think is a shame. And I think
[18:59] if we try to be complicit in failing in our duty to look into this by combining the Blanche nomination
[19:07] hearing with the Department of Justice oversight hearing we will have made a very very grave mistake.
[19:13] I know that the chairman is sympathetic to the oversight problems that we face here
[19:21] and the degree to which this department's behavior is exceptional. And I look forward to
[19:28] having those hearings go forward in a way that reflects the chairman's consistent desires for real
[19:33] oversight. And I hope that the proceedings reflect that.
[19:39] Together with the leaders of this bill, Senator Coons and Senator Blackburn, and I want to thank them
[19:45] from the very beginning. This builds on some of the work that Senator Cruz and I did on the Take
[19:50] It Down Act which is now signed into law and the provision requiring the platforms to take down non-consensual
[19:57] images in 48 hours is now actually in effect as well as the increased penalties for the people that
[20:05] post the illegal images. And I think this is a huge step forward and a model that we should be using
[20:13] in many contexts. And while this law that we did before, the No Fakes Act, focused on the non-consensual
[20:20] images and puts the rules of the road to give people control over digital replicas of their voice and
[20:29] likeness. This goes to something that we know has been a real, real problem. It's important we pass this
[20:36] bill because it is easier than ever to use AI tools to generate everything from images and videos, songs,
[20:45] recordings, and even senate hearings. In fact, um, Senator Blackburn and I held a hearing on privacy
[20:53] that was actually a great subcommittee hearing. We walked out of there thinking this is so good. Maybe
[20:58] we can find a compromise on this. And a day later I saw an image of myself and I thought, oh wow, like
[21:04] this thing is getting so much attention. It was me and she was sitting next to me and my staff was behind me
[21:10] and it was actually an AI image. Now that might have been considered parody. I didn't think it was
[21:15] very funny with what they said. Uh, they somehow put me in the middle of the Sydney Sweeney jeans campaign
[21:21] issue. Uh, but it was startling as I looked at my feed and finally the, um, platforms either took it
[21:28] down or put digitally altered on it. A number of people believed that they believed I'd used language that
[21:34] I would never use in this hearing room. Uh, they believed I said things that I would never say.
[21:39] And to me it was an example of how quickly these things can go viral. Um, so what happened here,
[21:45] and by the way, if it is parody, I believe it should, I have another piece of legislation that
[21:50] says that it should say digitally altered. So technology led to incredible things. Last year,
[21:56] we did an event, the four of us with Randy Travis, who lost his ability to sing, um, after having a stroke
[22:04] and using AI replicas of his own voice, he's been able to continue putting out music. But that's
[22:09] because it's his voice. It's his decision. Easy access to this technology has created real challenges
[22:16] that harm real people. Sony music has identified more than 135,000 songs with unauthorized deep fakes
[22:24] on streaming services. So, so much of what our country is based on and our innovation and our economy
[22:31] is based on ideas, innovation, people's intellectual products, their own creations. And if we mess around
[22:38] with this with AI and don't reward them for that, we're going to mess around with our entire economy.
[22:44] It isn't just artists. Consumers lost more than $3.5 billion through imposter schemes. And so that's why
[22:52] this bill is so important. Everyone should have the right to privacy and the right to control their own
[22:58] voice and their own likeness. And I'll just end by thanking the consumer, artists, entertainment, labor,
[23:05] tech stakeholders, uh, that have come together to support this bill. You must know something's going
[23:11] right, Senator Blackburn, when you can announce that you have the American Medical Association and SAG Actra
[23:17] supporting the same bill. It's just, uh, usually these interests don't align on something. It's not like
[23:22] they're opposed, but it just shows the broad coalition that supports doing something about
[23:28] this challenging and growing problem. Thank you. Before Senator Padilla and then Senator Cruz.
[23:36] This is an extraordinarily ill-motivated, uh, candidate for the judiciary who has expressly said
[23:42] it's not his intention to follow the law, but rather to impose his view of what he calls
[23:46] traditional Western values. He has derided textualism and indeed said,
[23:53] a court that correctly decides cases on narrow grounds without upsetting long set, but badly flawed
[24:02] precedents will not be much use. That is unacceptable for the conservative movement of today. In his own words,
[24:11] he will use his seat on the bench to impose his view of traditional Western values to press for the
[24:19] conservative movement of today and will avoid and indeed seems to mock the notion of correctly deciding
[24:27] cases on narrow grounds. Textualism and minimalism used to be conservative values. This does not provide that.
[24:34] The clerk will call the roll on flowers. Flag for my colleagues that, uh, this individual represents
[24:41] President Trump personally in his appeal of the 34 felony convictions for falsifying business records
[24:48] related to his payments to Stormy Daniels and also in the $464 million judgment against Trump and his
[24:56] family members and his business for inflated value of business assets. The president still owes the firm
[25:03] $400,000 evidently and notwithstanding the chairman's comments earlier about following norms.
[25:10] No blue slip from either of the New York senators. I urge a no vote. The clerk will call the roll on Schwartz.
[25:17] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to offer my strong support for the No Fakes Act today.
[25:22] Throughout my time in Congress, I've proudly represented the creative capital of the world
[25:26] and I've always believed that our creative economy and hundreds of thousands of hard-working people
[25:31] behind it deserve strong protections for their talents, voices, and likeness, which make up the foundation of their livelihoods.
[25:38] But in the advent of AI, those livelihoods as well as the identities of everyday Americans are under threat.
[25:43] The rapid advancement of generative AI has brought incredible innovation, but it's also unleashed a wave
[25:50] of unauthorized exploitation.
[25:52] We see this in the voices and visual likenesses of individuals from celebrities to children being replicated
[25:59] and weaponized without their permission and sometimes without their knowledge. That is why I've long
[26:05] supported the No Fakes Act. This legislation, backed by a wide coalition, establishes a clear federal right
[26:11] protecting all individuals from unauthorized digital replicas. The performers and voice actors who power a
[26:18] country's greatest cultural export deserve to know that their faces and voices won't be used to replace
[26:24] them. In order to protect human creativity and prevent against worse exploitation, I urge my colleagues to
[26:31] support this bill and I yield back. Chairman, I'm in this seat this morning because Illinois Senator Durbin
[26:43] was a close friend of Illinois Senator Obama and then U.S. President Obama. And today in a star-studded celebration,
[26:57] the Obama Presidential Library is going to open and Senator Durbin very, very much wanted to be there. I think
[27:06] he is exactly where he should be and that leaves me to fill in for him today. I'd like to take my time this
[27:16] morning to suggest that combining our oversight hearing of the Department of Justice with the
[27:27] nominations hearing for Acting Attorney General Blanche would be a grave mistake for the committee.
[27:39] I don't believe we did that with Attorney General Garland and I think the record of the Department of
[27:48] Justice under Todd Blanche lends itself to very vigorous oversight. Oversight which we have been denied
[28:01] because when we ask questions we get scripted litanies of insult and quarrel rather than actual
[28:09] answers to our questions. When we ask for documents and records in writing we get nothing. We are reduced to
[28:20] filing FOIA requests that are then not even complied with as FOIA requests. So the oversight function
[28:31] of this committee is really I think being systematically disabled. That's particularly significant when you
[28:38] have Attorney General Bondi saying that it was Todd Blanche who was responsible for the Epstein files
[28:48] disaster. The releases of private information and images of victims. The cover-up of documents that named Donald Trump and just the general
[29:03] incompetence of the whole wretched mess. I don't think that it would be a good idea for this committee to be complicit in covering up the cover-up of the Epstein files.
[29:20] Move on to the slush fund which a great number of my Republican colleagues have expressed real reservations about with its attachment of a tax amnesty deal for Trump, the Trump family and the Trump businesses.
[29:39] There are very legitimate questions to be asked about that including has that cockamamie idea really been withdrawn or is it just being hidden briefly so it can resurface in some other fashion.
[29:58] We should be looking into this as a committee. It's important stuff.
[30:02] And even if we shirk our duties at looking into all of this it appears that a Florida court is going to be looking into all of this and I think it's a bad look for the committee to be turning a blind eye to what went into the slush fund deal and the tax amnesty deal and then discover through a court proceeding in Florida all the stuff that we failed to look at.
[30:30] It's hard to be taken seriously if we have failed to do our own duty and then the court proceedings reveal the mischief.
[30:41] I will say that I've looked, I have never ever heard of senior officials of the Department of Justice being called before a court with respect to a fraud upon the court.
[31:01] Look up fraud upon a court. It's a pretty serious charge.
[31:06] This one was brought raised, I guess I should say, by 36, three dozen retired federal judges, some very, very respected ones, some very, very conservative ones.
[31:18] And the judge in the proceeding in Florida, out of which the slush fund settlement emerged, reopened the case to have a look.
[31:25] She asked for responses. She suggested that the DOJ might have violated its own policies in the settlement.
[31:40] She suggested that there was an IRS defense memo out there that would be relevant to the proceedings.
[31:50] The violation of DOJ policies would obviously be a matter for DOJ to answer.
[31:56] The IRS client memo would obviously be something for DOJ to answer.
[32:01] She also questioned whether there was collusion. It takes two to collude.
[32:07] It would be a collusion between the Department of Justice lawyers and Trump's private lawyers.
[32:15] So there's another reason for the Department of Justice to have responded.
[32:20] What happened last Friday? No response from the Department of Justice.
[32:24] First ever accusation of senior level Department of Justice people of fraud upon the court with an invitation to rebut the allegations,
[32:32] an invitation specific to Department of Justice conduct, and they duck.
[32:41] So that is going to continue.
[32:45] The three dozen judges have their answer this Friday, and then the court will go forward.
[32:49] I will contend that we don't look like much if that information is being developed in a federal courtroom,
[32:56] and we haven't been allowed to ask questions, and indeed, our oversight has been collapsed into a confirmation hearing.
[33:03] I have never seen a Department of Justice as badly run as this one.
[33:08] I've never seen fraud upon the court allegations.
[33:12] I've never seen so many suggestions of contempt.
[33:14] I've never seen so many no true bills.
[33:16] I've never seen so many cases thrown out.
[33:19] I've never seen so many accusations that Department arguments were false, were pretextual,
[33:24] were designed to fool rather than inform the court.
[33:27] And we see that over and over again from judges appointed by every president.
[33:33] It is now at the point where the Department of Justice and the U.S. government have lost their presumption of regularity in federal court proceedings.
[33:43] All of this matters.
[33:45] All of this is something to which this committee should be paying attention.
[33:49] And with respect to what our chairman has said about the norms of the committee,
[33:57] well, one norm is that U.S. attorneys come through this committee after a process of consultation before they get to run U.S. attorney's office.
[34:09] Over and over again, we see these slippery deals where acting U.S. attorneys are appointed,
[34:17] and then the first assistant is fired, and when the time runs out on the acting U.S. attorney,
[34:26] they slip back into the first attorney position and leave a vacancy.
[34:31] It's an obvious scam to get around this committee's norms.
[34:38] And we have put up with this.
[34:39] It didn't happen once.
[34:41] It didn't happen twice.
[34:42] It has happened over and over and over and over again.
[34:45] And on top of that, we've seen U.S. attorneys called out for misconduct over and over and over again.
[34:53] None of this is normal.
[34:56] None of this is normal.
[34:58] And the fact that this committee won't look into it, I think, is a shame.
[35:03] And I think if we try to be complicit in failing in our duty to look into this
[35:08] by combining the Blanche nomination hearing with the Department of Justice oversight hearing,
[35:14] we will have made a very, very grave mistake.
[35:17] I know that the chairman is sympathetic to the oversight problems that we face here
[35:24] and the degree to which this department's behavior is exceptional.
[35:29] And I look forward to having those hearings go forward in a way that reflects the chairman's consistent desires
[35:37] for real oversight, and I hope that the proceedings reflect that.
[35:42] You don't want to work together with the leaders of this bill, Senator Coons and Senator Blackburn,
[35:47] and I want to thank them from the very beginning.
[35:50] This builds on some of the work that Senator Cruz and I did on the Take It Down Act,
[35:55] which is now signed into law, and the provision requiring the platforms to take down non-consensual images in 48 hours
[36:03] is now actually in effect, as well as the increased penalties for the people that post the illegal images.
[36:12] And I think this is a huge step forward and a model that we should be using in many contexts.
[36:18] And while this law that we did before, the No Fakes Act, focused on the non-consensual images
[36:26] and puts the rules of the road to give people control over digital replicas of their voice and likeness,
[36:34] this goes to something that we know has been a real, real problem.
[36:38] It's important we pass this bill because it is easier than ever to use AI tools to generate everything
[36:45] from images and videos, songs, recordings, and even Senate hearings.
[36:52] In fact, Senator Blackburn and I held a hearing on privacy that was actually a great subcommittee hearing.
[36:59] We walked out of there thinking, this is so good, maybe we can find a compromise on this.
[37:04] And a day later, I saw an image of myself, and I thought, oh, wow, this thing is getting so much attention.
[37:11] It was me, and she was sitting next to me, and my staff was behind me, and it was actually an AI image.
[37:17] Now, that might have been considered parody.
[37:19] I didn't think it was very funny with what they said.
[37:21] They somehow put me in the middle of the Sydney Sweeney Jeans campaign issue.
[37:26] But it was startling as I looked at my feed, and finally the platforms either took it down
[37:32] or put digitally altered on it.
[37:34] A number of people believed that they believed I used language that I would never use in this hearing room.
[37:40] They believed I said things that I would never say.
[37:43] And to me, it was an example of how quickly these things can go viral.
[37:48] So what happened here, and by the way, if it is parody, I believe it should,
[37:53] I have another piece of legislation that says that it should say digitally altered.
[37:57] So technology led to incredible things.
[38:00] Last year, we did an event, the four of us with Randy Travis, who lost his ability to sing
[38:05] after having a stroke, and using AI replicas of his own voice, he's been able to continue putting out music.
[38:13] But that's because it's his voice.
[38:15] It's his decision.
[38:17] Easy access to this technology has created real challenges that harm real people.
[38:22] Sony Music has identified more than 135,000 songs with unauthorized deep fakes on streaming services.
[38:29] So, so much of what our country is based on, and our innovation, and our economy,
[38:35] is based on ideas, innovation, people's intellectual products, their own creations.
[38:42] And if we mess around with this with AI and don't reward them for that,
[38:46] we're going to mess around with our entire economy.
[38:49] It isn't just artists.
[38:50] Consumers lost more than $3.5 billion through imposter schemes.
[38:56] And so that's why this bill is so important.
[38:58] Everyone should have the right to privacy and the right to control their own voice and their own likeness.
[39:05] And I'll just end by thanking the consumer, artists, entertainment, labor, tech stakeholders
[39:10] that have come together to support this bill.
[39:13] You must know something's going right, Senator Blackburn,
[39:16] when you can announce that you have the American Medical Association and SAG-ACTA supporting the same bill.
[39:22] It's just a, usually these interests don't align on something.
[39:25] It's not like they're opposed.
[39:27] But it just shows the broad coalition that supports doing something about this challenging and growing problem.
[39:34] Thank you.
[39:35] This is an extraordinarily ill-motivated candidate for the judiciary who has expressly said
[39:46] it's not his intention to follow the law, but rather to impose his view of what he calls traditional Western values.
[39:53] He has derided textualism and indeed said a court that correctly decides cases on narrow grounds
[40:01] without upsetting long set, but badly flawed precedents will not be much use.
[40:08] That is unacceptable for the conservative movement of today.
[40:13] In his own words, he will use his seat on the bench to impose his view of traditional Western values,
[40:21] to press for the conservative movement of today, and will avoid, and indeed seems to mock,
[40:29] the notion of correctly deciding cases on narrow grounds.
[40:33] Textualism and minimalism used to be conservative values.
[40:37] This does not provide that.
[40:39] The clerk will call the roll on flowers.
[40:41] Flag for my colleagues that this individual represents President Trump personally
[40:46] in his appeal of the 34 felony convictions for falsifying business records
[40:51] related to his payments to Stormy Daniels, and also in the $464 million judgment against Trump
[41:00] and his family members and his business for inflated value of business assets.
[41:05] The president still owes the firm $400,000 evidently,
[41:10] and notwithstanding the chairman's comments earlier about following norms,
[41:14] no blue slip from either of the New York senators.
[41:17] I urge a no vote.
[41:18] The clerk will call the roll on Schwartz.
[41:21] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[41:23] I want to offer my strong support for the No Fakes Act today.
[41:26] Throughout my time in Congress, I've proudly represented the creative capital of the world,
[41:31] and I've always believed that our creative economy
[41:33] and hundreds of thousands of hardworking people behind it deserve strong protections
[41:37] for their talents, voices, and likeness, which make up the foundation of their livelihoods.
[41:42] But in the advent of AI, those livelihoods as well as the identities of everyday Americans are under threat.
[41:48] The rapid advancement of generative AI has brought incredible innovation,
[41:52] but it's also unleashed a wave of unauthorized exploitation.
[41:57] We see this in the voices and visual likenesses of individuals,
[42:00] from celebrities to children, being replicated and weaponized without their permission,
[42:05] and sometimes without their knowledge.
[42:08] That is why I've long supported the No Fakes Act.
[42:11] This legislation, backed by a wide coalition,
[42:14] establishes a clear federal right protecting all individuals from unauthorized digital replicas.
[42:21] The performers and voice actors who power a country's greatest cultural export
[42:24] deserve to know that their faces and voices won't be used to replace them.
[42:29] In order to protect human creativity and prevent against worse exploitation,
[42:34] I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back.
[42:37] Chairman, I'm in this seat this morning because Illinois Senator Durbin
[42:47] was a close friend of Illinois Senator Obama,
[42:53] and then U.S. President Obama,
[42:56] and today, in a star-studded celebration,
[43:02] the Obama Presidential Library is going to open,
[43:05] and Senator Durbin very, very much wanted to be there.
[43:10] I think he is exactly where he should be,
[43:13] and that leaves me to fill in for him today.
[43:17] I'd like to take my time this morning
[43:21] to suggest that combining our oversight hearing of the Department of Justice
[43:29] with the nominations hearing for Acting Attorney General Blanche
[43:37] would be a grave mistake for the committee.
[43:43] I don't believe we did that with Attorney General Garland,
[43:47] and I think the record of the Department of Justice under Todd Blanche
[43:55] lends itself to very vigorous oversight.
[44:01] Oversight, which we have been denied
[44:04] because when we ask questions,
[44:08] we get scripted litanies of insult and quarrel
[44:12] rather than actual answers to our questions.
[44:16] When we ask for documents and records in writing,
[44:21] we get nothing.
[44:23] We are reduced to filing FOIA requests
[44:25] requests that are then not even complied with as FOIA requests.
[44:31] So the oversight function of this committee
[44:36] is really, I think, being systematically disabled.
[44:40] That's particularly significant
[44:42] when you have Attorney General Bondi
[44:44] saying that it was Todd Blanche
[44:48] who was responsible for the Epstein Files disaster,
[44:54] the releases of private information and images of victims,
[44:59] the cover-up of documents that named Donald Trump,
[45:05] and just the general incompetence of the whole wretched mess.
[45:13] I don't think that it would be a good idea for this committee
[45:17] to be complicit in covering up the cover-up of the Epstein files.
[45:25] Let's move on to the slush fund,
[45:29] which a great number of my Republican colleagues
[45:32] have expressed real reservations about
[45:34] with its attachment of a tax amnesty deal
[45:38] for Trump, the Trump family, and the Trump businesses.
[45:44] There are very legitimate questions to be asked about that,
[45:49] including has that cockamamie idea really been withdrawn
[45:53] or is it just being hidden briefly
[45:56] so it can resurface in some other fashion.
[46:01] We should be looking into this as a committee.
[46:05] It's important stuff.
[46:08] And even if we shirk our duties
[46:10] at looking into all of this,
[46:12] it appears that a Florida court
[46:14] is going to be looking into all of this.
[46:17] And I think it's a bad look for the committee
[46:19] to be turning a blind eye
[46:21] to what went into the slush fund deal
[46:24] and the tax amnesty deal
[46:26] and then discover through a court proceeding in Florida
[46:31] all the stuff that we failed to look at.
[46:35] It's hard to be taken seriously
[46:37] if we have failed to do our own duty
[46:40] and then the court proceedings reveal the mischief.
[46:45] I will say that I've looked,
[46:49] I have never, ever heard of senior officials
[46:55] of the Department of Justice
[46:57] being called before a court
[47:00] with respect to a fraud upon the court.
[47:05] Look up fraud upon a court.
[47:08] It's a pretty serious charge.
[47:11] This one was brought, raised, I guess I should say,
[47:14] by 36, three dozen retired federal judges,
[47:17] some very, very respected ones,
[47:19] some very, very conservative ones.
[47:20] And the judge in the proceeding in Florida
[47:25] out of which the slush fund settlement emerged
[47:27] reopened the case to have a look.
[47:33] She asked for responses.
[47:38] She suggested that the DOJ
[47:40] might have violated its own policies in the settlement.
[47:44] She suggested that there was an IRS defense memo
[47:47] out there that would be relevant to the proceedings.
[47:54] The violation of DOJ policies
[47:56] would obviously be a matter for DOJ to answer.
[47:58] The IRS client memo would obviously be
[48:02] something for DOJ to answer.
[48:06] She also questioned whether there was collusion.
[48:10] It takes two to collude.
[48:12] It would be a collusion
[48:13] between the Department of Justice lawyers
[48:15] and Trump's private lawyers.
[48:19] So there's another reason
[48:20] for the Department of Justice to have responded.
[48:24] What happened last Friday?
[48:25] No response from the Department of Justice.
[48:27] First ever accusation of senior level
[48:31] Department of Justice people
[48:32] of fraud upon the court
[48:34] with an invitation to rebut the allegations,
[48:37] an invitation specific
[48:38] to Department of Justice conduct,
[48:41] and they duck.
[48:45] So that is going to continue.
[48:49] The three dozen judges have their answer this Friday,
[48:51] and then the court will go forward.
[48:53] I will contend that we don't look like much
[48:56] if that information is being developed
[48:59] in a federal courtroom,
[49:00] and we haven't been allowed to ask questions,
[49:02] and indeed, our oversight has been collapsed
[49:04] into a confirmation hearing.
[49:08] I have never seen a Department of Justice
[49:09] as badly run as this one.
[49:13] I've never seen fraud upon the court allegations.
[49:16] I've never seen so many suggestions of contempt.
[49:18] I've never seen so many no true bills.
[49:21] I've never seen so many cases thrown out.
[49:23] I've never seen so many accusations
[49:25] that Department arguments were false,
[49:27] were pretextual,
[49:28] were designed to fool rather than inform the court,
[49:32] and we see that over and over again
[49:34] from judges appointed by every president.
[49:38] It is now at the point
[49:39] where the Department of Justice
[49:40] and the U.S. government
[49:41] have lost their presumption of regularity
[49:44] in federal court proceedings.
[49:47] All of this matters.
[49:49] All of this is something
[49:51] to which this committee should be paying attention.
[49:55] And with respect to what our chairman has said
[49:58] about the norms of the committee,
[49:59] Well, one norm is that U.S. attorneys
[50:03] come through this committee
[50:04] after a process of consultation
[50:08] before they get to run U.S. attorney's office.
[50:13] Over and over again,
[50:16] we see these slippery deals
[50:17] where acting U.S. attorneys are appointed
[50:21] and then the first assistant is fired
[50:25] and when the time runs out
[50:27] on the acting U.S. attorney,
[50:30] they slip back into the first attorney position
[50:33] and leave a vacancy.
[50:35] It's an obvious scam
[50:38] to get around this committee's norms.
[50:42] And we have put up with this.
[50:44] It didn't happen once.
[50:45] It didn't happen twice.
[50:46] It has happened over and over
[50:47] and over and over again.
[50:49] And on top of that,
[50:51] we've seen U.S. attorneys
[50:52] called out for misconduct
[50:54] over and over and over again.
[50:57] None of this is normal.
[51:00] None of this is normal.
[51:02] And the fact that this committee
[51:03] won't look into it,
[51:06] I think, is a shame.
[51:07] And I think if we try to be complicit
[51:09] in failing in our duty
[51:11] to look into this
[51:12] by combining
[51:14] the Blanche nomination hearing
[51:16] with the Department of Justice oversight hearing,
[51:18] we will have made
[51:19] a very, very grave mistake.
[51:21] I know that the chairman
[51:23] is sympathetic
[51:24] to the oversight problems
[51:27] that we face here
[51:28] and the degree to which
[51:30] this department's behavior
[51:31] is exceptional.
[51:33] And I look forward to
[51:35] having those hearings
[51:37] go forward in a way
[51:37] that reflects
[51:38] the chairman's consistent desires
[51:41] for real oversight.
[51:42] And I hope that the
[51:43] proceedings reflect that.
[51:46] I don't want to...
[51:47] Together with the leaders
[51:48] of this bill,
[51:50] Senator Coons
[51:50] and Senator Blackburn,
[51:51] and I want to thank them
[51:53] from the very beginning.
[51:55] This builds on
[51:55] some of the work
[51:56] that Senator Cruz and I did
[51:58] on the Take It Down Act,
[51:59] which is now signed into law
[52:01] and the provision
[52:02] requiring the platforms
[52:03] to take down
[52:04] non-consensual images
[52:06] in 48 hours
[52:07] is now actually in effect,
[52:09] as well as
[52:10] the increased penalties
[52:11] for the people
[52:12] that post
[52:13] the illegal images.
[52:17] And I think
[52:17] this is a huge step forward
[52:19] and a model
[52:20] that we should be using
[52:21] in many contexts.
[52:23] And while this law
[52:25] that we did before,
[52:26] the No Fakes Act,
[52:27] focused on the
[52:28] non-consensual images
[52:30] and puts the rules
[52:32] of the road
[52:33] to give people control
[52:35] over digital replicas
[52:36] of their voice and likeness,
[52:38] this goes to something
[52:40] that we know
[52:40] has been a real, real problem.
[52:43] It's important
[52:44] we pass this bill
[52:44] because it is easier
[52:46] than ever
[52:46] to use AI tools
[52:48] to generate everything
[52:49] from images,
[52:51] videos,
[52:53] songs, recordings,
[52:54] and even Senate hearings.
[52:56] In fact,
[52:58] Senator Blackburn
[52:59] and I held
[52:59] a hearing on privacy
[53:01] that was actually
[53:02] a great subcommittee hearing.
[53:04] We walked out of there
[53:04] thinking,
[53:05] this is so good,
[53:05] maybe we can find
[53:07] a compromise on this.
[53:08] And a day later,
[53:09] I saw an image of myself
[53:10] and I thought,
[53:11] oh wow,
[53:12] this thing is getting
[53:13] so much attention.
[53:15] It was me
[53:15] and she was sitting next to me
[53:17] and my staff was behind me
[53:18] and it was actually
[53:20] an AI image.
[53:21] Now that might have been
[53:22] considered parody.
[53:23] I didn't think it was very funny
[53:24] with what they said.
[53:25] They somehow put me
[53:26] in the middle
[53:27] of the Sydney Sweeney jeans
[53:29] campaign issue.
[53:30] But it was startling
[53:32] as I looked at my feed
[53:33] and finally the platforms
[53:35] either took it down
[53:36] or put digitally altered on it.
[53:38] A number of people believed
[53:40] that they believed
[53:40] I used language
[53:42] that I would never use
[53:43] in this hearing room.
[53:45] They believed I said things
[53:46] that I would never say.
[53:47] And to me,
[53:48] it was an example
[53:49] of how quickly
[53:50] these things can go viral.
[53:52] So what happened here,
[53:54] and by the way,
[53:55] if it is parody,
[53:56] I believe it should,
[53:57] I have another piece
[53:58] of legislation
[53:58] that says that it should say
[54:00] digitally altered.
[54:02] So technology
[54:03] led to incredible things.
[54:04] Last year,
[54:05] we did an event,
[54:06] the four of us
[54:06] with Randy Travis,
[54:08] who lost his ability
[54:09] to sing after having a stroke.
[54:12] And using AI replicas
[54:14] of his own voice,
[54:15] he's been able
[54:15] to continue putting up music.
[54:17] But that's because
[54:18] it's his voice.
[54:19] It's his decision.
[54:21] Easy access
[54:21] to this technology
[54:23] has created real challenges
[54:24] that harm real people.
[54:26] Sony Music
[54:27] has identified
[54:27] more than 135,000 songs
[54:30] with unauthorized deepfakes
[54:32] on streaming services.
[54:34] So, so much
[54:35] of what our country
[54:36] is based on
[54:36] and our innovation
[54:37] and our economy
[54:39] is based on ideas,
[54:40] innovation,
[54:41] people's intellectual products,
[54:44] their own creations.
[54:45] And if we mess around
[54:47] with this with AI
[54:48] and don't reward them
[54:49] for that,
[54:50] we're going to mess around
[54:51] with our entire economy.
[54:53] It isn't just artists.
[54:55] Consumers lost
[54:55] more than $3.5 billion
[54:57] through imposter schemes.
[55:00] And so that's why
[55:01] this bill is so important.
[55:03] Everyone should have
[55:03] the right to privacy
[55:04] and the right to control
[55:06] their own voice
[55:07] and their own likeness.
[55:09] And I'll just end
[55:10] by thanking
[55:10] the consumer,
[55:11] artists,
[55:12] entertainment,
[55:13] labor,
[55:14] tech stakeholders
[55:14] that have come together
[55:16] to support this bill.
[55:17] You must know
[55:18] something's going right,
[55:20] Senator Blackburn,
[55:20] when you can announce
[55:22] that you have
[55:22] the American Medical Association
[55:24] and SAG Actra
[55:25] supporting the same bill.
[55:26] It's just a,
[55:27] usually these interests
[55:28] don't align on something.
[55:30] It's not like they're opposed.
[55:31] But it just shows
[55:32] the broad coalition
[55:34] that supports
[55:35] doing something
[55:36] about this challenging
[55:37] and growing problem.
[55:38] Thank you.
[55:39] Before Senator Padilla
[55:41] and then Senator Cruz.
[55:44] This is an extraordinarily
[55:45] ill-motivated candidate
[55:47] for the judiciary
[55:48] who has expressly said
[55:50] it's not his intention
[55:51] to follow the law,
[55:52] but rather to impose
[55:53] his view
[55:54] of what he calls
[55:55] traditional Western values.
[55:58] He has derided textualism
[56:00] and indeed said
[56:01] a court that correctly
[56:03] decides cases
[56:04] on narrow grounds
[56:05] without upsetting
[56:07] long set
[56:08] but badly flawed precedents
[56:10] will not be much use.
[56:12] That is unacceptable
[56:13] for the conservative movement
[56:16] of today.
[56:18] In his own words,
[56:20] he will use his seat
[56:21] on the bench
[56:22] to impose his view
[56:24] of traditional Western values
[56:25] to press for the conservative movement
[56:28] of today
[56:29] and will avoid
[56:31] and indeed seems to mock
[56:33] the notion of correctly
[56:34] deciding cases
[56:36] on narrow grounds.
[56:37] Textualism and minimalism
[56:39] used to be conservative values.
[56:41] This does not provide that.
[56:43] the clerk will call the roll on flowers.
[56:45] Flag for my colleagues
[56:47] that this individual
[56:48] represents President Trump personally
[56:50] in his appeal
[56:51] of the 34 felony convictions
[56:54] for falsifying business records
[56:56] related to his payments
[56:57] to Stormy Daniels
[56:59] and also in the $464 million judgment
[57:03] against Trump
[57:04] and his family members
[57:05] and his business
[57:06] for inflated value
[57:08] of business assets.
[57:09] The president still owes
[57:11] the firm $400,000 evidently
[57:13] and notwithstanding
[57:15] the chairman's comments earlier
[57:17] about following norms
[57:18] no blue slip
[57:19] from either of the New York senators.
[57:21] I urge a no vote.
[57:23] The clerk will call the roll
[57:24] on Schwartz.
[57:26] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[57:27] I want to offer my strong support
[57:29] for the No Fakes Act today.
[57:30] Throughout my time in Congress,
[57:32] I've proudly represented
[57:33] the creative capital of the world
[57:34] and I've always believed
[57:36] that our creative economy
[57:37] and hundreds of thousands
[57:39] of hardworking people behind it
[57:40] deserve strong protections
[57:41] for their talents, voices,
[57:43] and likeness
[57:44] which make up the foundation
[57:45] of their livelihoods.
[57:47] But in the advent of AI,
[57:48] those livelihoods
[57:49] as well as the identities
[57:50] of everyday Americans
[57:51] are under threat.
[57:53] The rapid advancement
[57:53] of generative AI
[57:55] has brought incredible innovation
[57:56] but it's also unleashed
[57:57] a wave of unauthorized exploitation.
[58:01] We see this in the voices
[58:02] and visual likenesses
[58:03] of individuals
[58:04] from celebrities
[58:05] to children
[58:06] being replicated
[58:08] and weaponized
[58:08] without their permission
[58:09] and sometimes
[58:10] without their knowledge.
[58:13] That is why I've long supported
[58:14] the No Fakes Act.
[58:15] This legislation,
[58:16] backed by a wide coalition,
[58:18] establishes a clear
[58:19] federal right
[58:20] protecting all individuals
[58:21] from unauthorized
[58:22] digital replicas.
[58:25] The performers
[58:25] and voice actors
[58:26] who power a country's
[58:27] greatest cultural export
[58:29] deserve to know
[58:30] that their faces
[58:31] and voices
[58:31] won't be used
[58:32] to replace them.
[58:33] In order to protect
[58:34] human creativity
[58:35] and prevent against
[58:36] worse exploitation,
[58:39] I urge my colleagues
[58:39] to support this bill
[58:41] and I yield back.
[58:42] Chairman,
[58:43] I'm in this seat
[58:45] this morning
[58:46] because Illinois
[58:49] Senator Durbin
[58:52] was a close friend
[58:55] of Illinois Senator Obama
[58:57] and then U.S. President Obama
[59:00] and today
[59:02] in a star-studded celebration,
[59:06] the Obama Presidential Library
[59:07] is going to open
[59:09] and Senator Durbin
[59:11] very, very much
[59:12] wanted to be there.
[59:14] I think he is exactly
[59:15] where he should be
[59:16] and that leaves me
[59:19] to fill in for him today.
[59:21] I'd like to take
[59:24] my time this morning
[59:25] to suggest
[59:27] that combining
[59:30] our oversight hearing
[59:32] of the Department of Justice
[59:34] with the nominations hearing
[59:37] for Acting Attorney General Blanche
[59:41] would be a grave mistake
[59:45] for the committee.
[59:46] I don't believe we did that
[59:49] with Attorney General Garland
[59:51] and I think
[59:54] the record
[59:55] of the Department of Justice
[59:57] under Todd Blanche
[59:59] lends itself
[1:00:01] to very vigorous oversight.
[1:00:05] Oversight which we have been denied
[1:00:08] because when we ask questions
[1:00:12] we get scripted litanies
[1:00:15] of insult and quarrel
[1:00:16] rather than actual answers
[1:00:18] to our questions.
[1:00:20] When we ask for documents
[1:00:23] and records in writing
[1:00:24] we get nothing.
[1:00:27] We are reduced
[1:00:28] to filing FOIA requests
[1:00:30] that are then not
[1:00:31] even complied with
[1:00:32] as FOIA requests.
[1:00:35] So the oversight function
[1:00:39] of this committee
[1:00:40] is really I think
[1:00:42] being systematically disabled.
[1:00:44] That's particularly significant
[1:00:46] when you have
[1:00:47] Attorney General Bondi
[1:00:48] saying that it was
[1:00:50] Todd Blanche
[1:00:52] who was responsible
[1:00:54] for the Epstein Files disaster.
[1:00:59] The releases
[1:00:59] of private information
[1:01:01] and images
[1:01:02] of victims
[1:01:03] the cover up
[1:01:05] of documents
[1:01:07] that named
[1:01:08] Donald Trump
[1:01:09] and just the general
[1:01:11] incompetence
[1:01:12] of the whole
[1:01:14] wretched mess.
[1:01:16] I don't think
[1:01:18] that it would be
[1:01:19] a good idea
[1:01:20] for this committee
[1:01:21] to be complicit
[1:01:23] in covering up
[1:01:25] the cover up
[1:01:27] of the Epstein files.
[1:01:30] Move on to
[1:01:32] the slush fund
[1:01:33] which a great
[1:01:33] number of my
[1:01:35] Republican colleagues
[1:01:36] have expressed real reservations
[1:01:38] about
[1:01:38] with its attachment
[1:01:40] of a tax amnesty deal
[1:01:42] for Trump,
[1:01:44] the Trump family,
[1:01:45] and the Trump businesses.
[1:01:48] There are very legitimate questions
[1:01:51] to be asked about that
[1:01:52] including
[1:01:53] has that cockamamie idea
[1:01:56] really been withdrawn
[1:01:57] or is it just
[1:01:59] being hidden briefly
[1:02:01] so it can resurface
[1:02:03] in some other fashion.
[1:02:04] we should be looking
[1:02:07] into this
[1:02:08] as a committee.
[1:02:09] It's important stuff
[1:02:10] and even if we
[1:02:13] shirk our duties
[1:02:14] at looking into
[1:02:15] all of this
[1:02:15] it appears
[1:02:17] that a Florida court
[1:02:19] is going to be looking
[1:02:20] into all of this
[1:02:21] and I think
[1:02:22] it's a bad look
[1:02:23] for the committee
[1:02:23] to be turning
[1:02:25] a blind eye
[1:02:25] to what went into
[1:02:27] the slush fund deal
[1:02:28] and the tax amnesty deal
[1:02:30] and then discover
[1:02:32] through a court
[1:02:34] proceeding in Florida
[1:02:35] all the stuff
[1:02:37] that we failed
[1:02:38] to look at
[1:02:39] it's hard to be
[1:02:40] taken seriously
[1:02:41] if we have failed
[1:02:42] to do our own duty
[1:02:44] and then
[1:02:45] the court proceedings
[1:02:46] reveal
[1:02:48] the mischief.
[1:02:50] I will say that
[1:02:51] I've looked
[1:02:52] I have never
[1:02:54] ever
[1:02:55] heard
[1:02:57] of senior officials
[1:02:59] of the Department of Justice
[1:03:01] being called
[1:03:04] before a court
[1:03:05] with respect to
[1:03:07] a fraud upon the court.
[1:03:10] Look up
[1:03:10] fraud upon a court.
[1:03:11] It's a pretty
[1:03:13] serious charge.
[1:03:15] This one was brought
[1:03:16] raised
[1:03:17] I guess I should say
[1:03:18] by 36
[1:03:19] three dozen
[1:03:20] retired federal judges
[1:03:21] some very very
[1:03:22] respected ones
[1:03:23] some very very
[1:03:24] conservative ones
[1:03:25] and the judge
[1:03:27] in the proceeding
[1:03:28] in Florida
[1:03:29] out of which
[1:03:29] the slush fund settlement
[1:03:31] emerged
[1:03:32] reopened the case
[1:03:33] to have a look.
[1:03:37] She asked for responses
[1:03:41] she suggested
[1:03:43] that the DOJ
[1:03:44] might have violated
[1:03:45] its own policies
[1:03:46] in the settlement.
[1:03:48] She suggested
[1:03:49] that there was
[1:03:50] an IRS defense memo
[1:03:52] out there
[1:03:52] that would be
[1:03:54] relevant to the proceedings.
[1:03:58] The violation
[1:03:59] of DOJ policies
[1:04:00] would obviously
[1:04:01] be a matter
[1:04:01] for DOJ to answer.
[1:04:04] The IRS client memo
[1:04:05] would obviously
[1:04:06] be something
[1:04:07] for DOJ
[1:04:08] to answer.
[1:04:10] She also questioned
[1:04:11] whether there was collusion.
[1:04:14] It takes two
[1:04:15] to collude.
[1:04:16] It would be a collusion
[1:04:17] between the Department
[1:04:18] of Justice lawyers
[1:04:19] and Trump's private lawyers.
[1:04:23] So there's another reason
[1:04:24] for the Department
[1:04:25] of Justice
[1:04:26] to have responded.
[1:04:28] What happened
[1:04:28] last Friday?
[1:04:29] No response
[1:04:30] from the Department
[1:04:31] of Justice.
[1:04:32] First ever accusation
[1:04:34] of senior level
[1:04:35] Department of Justice people
[1:04:36] of fraud upon the court
[1:04:38] with an invitation
[1:04:39] to rebut the allegations
[1:04:41] an invitation
[1:04:42] specific
[1:04:43] to Department
[1:04:44] of Justice conduct
[1:04:45] and they duck.
[1:04:49] So that
[1:04:50] is going to continue.
[1:04:53] The three dozen judges
[1:04:54] have their answer
[1:04:55] this Friday
[1:04:55] and then the court
[1:04:56] will go forward.
[1:04:58] I will contend
[1:04:58] that we don't look
[1:04:59] like much
[1:05:00] if that information
[1:05:02] is being developed
[1:05:03] in a federal courtroom
[1:05:04] and we haven't been
[1:05:05] allowed to ask questions
[1:05:06] and indeed
[1:05:07] our oversight
[1:05:08] has been collapsed
[1:05:09] into a confirmation hearing.
[1:05:12] I have never seen
[1:05:13] a Department of Justice
[1:05:14] as badly run
[1:05:15] as this one.
[1:05:17] I've never seen
[1:05:18] fraud upon the court
[1:05:19] allegations.
[1:05:20] I've never seen
[1:05:21] so many suggestions
[1:05:21] of contempt.
[1:05:23] I've never seen
[1:05:23] so many no true bills.
[1:05:25] I've never seen
[1:05:25] so many cases thrown out.
[1:05:27] I've never seen
[1:05:28] so many accusations
[1:05:29] that Department arguments
[1:05:31] were false
[1:05:31] were pretextual
[1:05:32] were designed to fool
[1:05:34] rather than inform
[1:05:35] the court
[1:05:36] and we see that
[1:05:37] over and over again
[1:05:38] from judges appointed
[1:05:39] by every president.
[1:05:42] It is now at the point
[1:05:43] where the Department of Justice
[1:05:44] and the U.S. government
[1:05:45] have lost their presumption
[1:05:47] of regularity
[1:05:48] in federal court proceedings.
[1:05:51] All of this matters.
[1:05:54] All of this is something
[1:05:55] to which this committee
[1:05:56] should be paying attention
[1:05:58] and with respect
[1:05:59] to what our chairman
[1:06:02] has said
[1:06:02] about the norms
[1:06:03] of the committee
[1:06:03] well one norm
[1:06:06] is that U.S. attorneys
[1:06:07] come through this committee
[1:06:08] after a process
[1:06:12] of consultation
[1:06:13] before they get
[1:06:15] to run U.S. attorney's office.
[1:06:17] Over and over again
[1:06:18] we see these slippery deals
[1:06:22] where acting U.S. attorneys
[1:06:25] are appointed
[1:06:26] and then the first assistant
[1:06:29] is fired
[1:06:29] and when the time
[1:06:31] runs out
[1:06:31] on the acting
[1:06:32] U.S. attorney
[1:06:34] they slip back
[1:06:35] into the first attorney position
[1:06:37] and leave a vacancy.
[1:06:39] It's an obvious scam
[1:06:42] to get around
[1:06:43] this committee's norms
[1:06:45] and we have put up with this.
[1:06:48] It didn't happen once.
[1:06:49] It didn't happen twice.
[1:06:50] It has happened over
[1:06:51] and over
[1:06:51] and over
[1:06:52] and over again
[1:06:53] and on top of that
[1:06:55] we've seen U.S. attorneys
[1:06:56] called out for misconduct
[1:06:58] over and over
[1:07:00] and over again.
[1:07:01] None of this is normal.
[1:07:04] None of this is normal
[1:07:05] and the fact that
[1:07:07] this committee
[1:07:08] won't look into it
[1:07:09] I think is a shame
[1:07:11] and I think if we try
[1:07:12] to be complicit
[1:07:14] in failing in our duty
[1:07:15] to look into this
[1:07:16] by combining
[1:07:18] the Blanche nomination hearing
[1:07:20] with the Department of Justice
[1:07:21] oversight hearing
[1:07:22] we will have made
[1:07:23] a very very grave mistake.
[1:07:26] I know that the chairman
[1:07:27] is sympathetic
[1:07:29] to the oversight problems
[1:07:31] that we face here
[1:07:32] and the degree
[1:07:34] to which this department's
[1:07:35] behavior is exceptional
[1:07:36] and I look forward
[1:07:39] to having those hearings
[1:07:41] go forward in a way
[1:07:42] that reflects
[1:07:42] the chairman's
[1:07:44] consistent desires
[1:07:45] for real oversight
[1:07:46] and I hope that
[1:07:47] the proceedings reflect
[1:07:49] that.
[1:07:51] Together with the leaders
[1:07:53] of this bill
[1:07:53] Senator Coons
[1:07:54] and Senator Blackburn
[1:07:56] and I want to thank them
[1:07:57] from the very beginning.
[1:07:59] This builds on
[1:08:00] some of the work
[1:08:01] that Senator Cruz
[1:08:02] and I did
[1:08:02] on the Take It Down Act
[1:08:04] which is now signed
[1:08:04] into law
[1:08:05] and the provision
[1:08:06] requiring the platforms
[1:08:08] to take down
[1:08:08] non-consensual images
[1:08:10] in 48 hours
[1:08:11] is now actually
[1:08:12] in effect
[1:08:13] as well as
[1:08:14] the increased penalties
[1:08:15] for the people
[1:08:16] that post
[1:08:18] the illegal images
[1:08:20] and I think
[1:08:22] this is a huge step forward
[1:08:23] and a model
[1:08:24] that we should be using
[1:08:25] in many contexts
[1:08:27] and while this law
[1:08:29] that we did before
[1:08:30] the No Fakes Act
[1:08:31] focused on the
[1:08:32] non-consensual images
[1:08:34] and puts the rules
[1:08:36] of the road
[1:08:37] to give people control
[1:08:39] over digital replicas
[1:08:41] of their voice
[1:08:41] and likeness
[1:08:42] this goes to something
[1:08:44] that we know
[1:08:44] has been a real,
[1:08:46] real problem.
[1:08:47] It's important
[1:08:48] we pass this bill
[1:08:49] because it is easier
[1:08:50] than ever
[1:08:50] to use AI tools
[1:08:52] to generate everything
[1:08:53] from images
[1:08:55] and videos,
[1:08:57] songs,
[1:08:58] recordings
[1:08:58] and even Senate hearings.
[1:09:00] In fact,
[1:09:02] Senator Blackburn
[1:09:03] and I held
[1:09:03] a hearing
[1:09:05] on privacy
[1:09:06] that was actually
[1:09:06] a great subcommittee hearing.
[1:09:08] We walked out of there
[1:09:08] thinking this is so good
[1:09:10] maybe we can find
[1:09:11] a compromise on this
[1:09:12] and a day later
[1:09:13] I saw an image of myself
[1:09:14] and I thought
[1:09:16] oh wow
[1:09:16] this thing is getting
[1:09:18] so much attention.
[1:09:19] It was me
[1:09:19] and she was sitting next to me
[1:09:21] and my staff was behind me
[1:09:23] and it was actually
[1:09:24] an AI image.
[1:09:25] Now that might have been
[1:09:26] considered parody.
[1:09:27] I didn't think
[1:09:27] it was very funny
[1:09:28] with what they said.
[1:09:30] They somehow put me
[1:09:31] in the middle
[1:09:31] of the Sidney Sweeney
[1:09:32] Jeans campaign issue
[1:09:34] but it was startling
[1:09:36] as I looked at my feed
[1:09:37] and finally the platforms
[1:09:39] either took it down
[1:09:40] or put digitally altered
[1:09:42] on it.
[1:09:43] A number of people
[1:09:43] believed it.
[1:09:44] They believed
[1:09:45] I used language
[1:09:46] that I would never use
[1:09:47] in this hearing room.
[1:09:49] They believed
[1:09:49] I said things
[1:09:50] that I would never say
[1:09:51] and to me
[1:09:52] it was an example
[1:09:53] of how quickly
[1:09:54] these things can go viral.
[1:09:57] So what happened here
[1:09:58] and by the way
[1:09:59] if it is parody
[1:10:00] I believe it should
[1:10:01] I have another piece
[1:10:02] of legislation
[1:10:03] that says
[1:10:03] that it should say
[1:10:04] digitally altered.
[1:10:06] So technology
[1:10:07] led to incredible things.
[1:10:08] Last year
[1:10:09] we did an event
[1:10:10] the four of us
[1:10:11] with Randy Travis
[1:10:12] who lost his ability
[1:10:13] to sing
[1:10:14] after having a stroke
[1:10:16] and using AI replicas
[1:10:18] of his own voice
[1:10:19] he's been able
[1:10:19] to continue
[1:10:20] putting out music
[1:10:21] but that's because
[1:10:22] it's his voice
[1:10:23] it's his decision.
[1:10:25] Easy access
[1:10:26] to this technology
[1:10:27] has created
[1:10:27] real challenges
[1:10:28] that harm real people.
[1:10:30] Sony Music
[1:10:31] has identified
[1:10:31] more than 135,000 songs
[1:10:34] with unauthorized deepfakes
[1:10:36] on streaming services.
[1:10:38] So so much
[1:10:39] of what our country
[1:10:40] is based on
[1:10:40] and our innovation
[1:10:42] and our economy
[1:10:43] is based on ideas,
[1:10:45] innovation,
[1:10:46] people's intellectual
[1:10:47] products,
[1:10:48] their own creations.
[1:10:50] And if we mess around
[1:10:51] with this with AI
[1:10:52] and don't reward them
[1:10:53] for that
[1:10:54] we're going to mess around
[1:10:55] with our entire economy.
[1:10:57] It isn't just artists.
[1:10:59] Consumers lost
[1:11:00] more than 3.5 billion dollars
[1:11:02] through imposter schemes
[1:11:03] and so that's why
[1:11:05] this bill is so important.
[1:11:07] Everyone should have
[1:11:07] the right to privacy
[1:11:08] and the right to control
[1:11:10] their own voice
[1:11:11] and their own likeness.
[1:11:13] And I'll just end
[1:11:14] by thanking
[1:11:14] the consumer,
[1:11:15] artists,
[1:11:16] entertainment,
[1:11:17] labor,
[1:11:18] tech stakeholders
[1:11:18] that have come together
[1:11:20] to support this bill.
[1:11:22] You must know
[1:11:22] something's going right
[1:11:24] Senator Blackburn
[1:11:24] when you can announce
[1:11:26] that you have
[1:11:26] the American Medical Association
[1:11:28] and SAG Actra
[1:11:29] supporting the same bill.
[1:11:31] It's just a
[1:11:31] usually these interests
[1:11:32] don't align on something.
[1:11:34] It's not like
[1:11:34] they're opposed
[1:11:35] but it just shows
[1:11:36] the broad coalition
[1:11:38] that supports
[1:11:39] doing something
[1:11:40] about this challenging
[1:11:41] and growing problem.
[1:11:43] Thank you.
[1:11:44] Before Senator Padilla
[1:11:45] and then Senator Cruz
[1:11:47] This is an extraordinarily
[1:11:49] ill-motivated candidate
[1:11:51] for the judiciary
[1:11:52] who has expressly said
[1:11:55] it's not his intention
[1:11:56] to follow the law
[1:11:56] but rather to impose
[1:11:57] his view of what he calls
[1:11:59] traditional Western values.
[1:12:02] He has derided textualism
[1:12:04] and indeed said
[1:12:05] a court that correctly
[1:12:07] decides cases
[1:12:08] on narrow grounds
[1:12:09] without upsetting
[1:12:11] without upsetting
[1:12:11] long set
[1:12:12] but badly flawed precedents
[1:12:15] will not be much use
[1:12:16] that is unacceptable
[1:12:18] for the conservative movement
[1:12:20] of today.
[1:12:21] In his own words
[1:12:23] he will use his seat
[1:12:25] on the bench
[1:12:26] to impose
[1:12:27] his view
[1:12:28] of traditional Western values
[1:12:29] to press
[1:12:31] for the conservative movement
[1:12:32] of today
[1:12:33] and will avoid
[1:12:35] and indeed
[1:12:35] seems to mock
[1:12:37] the notion
[1:12:38] of correctly deciding cases
[1:12:40] on narrow grounds.
[1:12:42] Textualism
[1:12:42] and minimalism
[1:12:43] used to be
[1:12:44] conservative values
[1:12:45] this does not provide that.
[1:12:47] The clerk will call the roll
[1:12:49] on flowers.
[1:12:50] Flag for my colleagues
[1:12:51] that this individual
[1:12:52] represents President Trump
[1:12:54] personally
[1:12:54] in his appeal
[1:12:55] of the 34 felony convictions
[1:12:58] for falsifying
[1:12:59] business records
[1:13:00] related to his payments
[1:13:01] to Stormy Daniels
[1:13:04] and also
[1:13:05] in the 464 million dollar judgment
[1:13:07] against Trump
[1:13:08] and his family members
[1:13:09] and his business
[1:13:10] for inflated
[1:13:11] value
[1:13:12] of business assets.
[1:13:14] The president still owes
[1:13:15] the firm
[1:13:15] $400,000
[1:13:16] evidently
[1:13:18] and notwithstanding
[1:13:19] the chairman's comments
[1:13:20] earlier about following norms
[1:13:22] no blue slip
[1:13:23] from either of the New York
[1:13:24] senators
[1:13:25] I urge a no vote.
[1:13:27] The clerk will call the roll
[1:13:29] on Schwartz.
[1:13:30] Thank you Mr. Chairman
[1:13:31] I want to offer
[1:13:32] my strong support
[1:13:33] for the No Fakes Act today
[1:13:34] throughout my time in Congress
[1:13:36] I've proudly represented
[1:13:37] the creative capital
[1:13:38] of the world
[1:13:39] and I've always believed
[1:13:40] that our creative economy
[1:13:41] and hundreds of thousands
[1:13:43] of hardworking people
[1:13:44] behind it
[1:13:44] deserve strong protections
[1:13:45] for their talents
[1:13:47] voices and likeness
[1:13:48] which make up the foundation
[1:13:49] of their livelihoods
[1:13:50] but in the advent of AI
[1:13:52] those livelihoods
[1:13:53] as well as the identities
[1:13:54] of everyday Americans
[1:13:55] are under threat.
[1:13:57] The rapid advancement
[1:13:58] of generative AI
[1:13:59] has brought incredible innovation
[1:14:00] but it's also unleashed
[1:14:01] a wave
[1:14:02] of unauthorized exploitation
[1:14:04] we see this
[1:14:05] in the voices
[1:14:06] and visual likenesses
[1:14:07] of individuals
[1:14:08] from celebrities
[1:14:09] to children
[1:14:10] being replicated
[1:14:12] and weaponized
[1:14:13] without their permission
[1:14:13] and sometimes
[1:14:15] without their knowledge
[1:14:16] that is why
[1:14:17] I've long supported
[1:14:18] the No Fakes Act
[1:14:19] this legislation
[1:14:20] backed by a wide coalition
[1:14:22] establishes a clear
[1:14:23] federal right
[1:14:24] protecting all individuals
[1:14:25] from unauthorized
[1:14:27] digital replicas
[1:14:28] the performers
[1:14:30] and voice actors
[1:14:30] who power a country's
[1:14:31] greatest cultural export
[1:14:33] deserve to know
[1:14:34] that their faces
[1:14:35] and voices
[1:14:35] won't be used
[1:14:36] to replace them
[1:14:37] in order to protect
[1:14:38] human creativity
[1:14:39] and prevent against
[1:14:40] worse exploitation
[1:14:42] I urge my colleagues
[1:14:44] to support this bill
[1:14:45] and I yield back.
[1:14:46] Chairman
[1:14:47] I'm in this seat
[1:14:49] this morning
[1:14:51] because Illinois
[1:14:54] Senator Durbin
[1:14:56] was a close friend
[1:14:59] of Illinois
[1:15:00] Senator Obama
[1:15:01] and then U.S.
[1:15:03] President Obama
[1:15:04] and today
[1:15:06] in a star-studded
[1:15:08] celebration
[1:15:10] the Obama Presidential Library
[1:15:12] is going to open
[1:15:13] and Senator Durbin
[1:15:15] very, very much
[1:15:16] wanted to be there
[1:15:17] I think he is
[1:15:19] exactly where
[1:15:20] he should be
[1:15:21] and that leaves me
[1:15:23] to fill in
[1:15:24] for him today.
[1:15:26] I'd like to take
[1:15:28] my time this morning
[1:15:29] to suggest
[1:15:31] that combining
[1:15:34] our oversight hearing
[1:15:36] of the Department of Justice
[1:15:38] with the nominations hearing
[1:15:41] for Acting Attorney
[1:15:44] General Blanche
[1:15:45] would be a grave
[1:15:48] mistake
[1:15:49] for the committee.
[1:15:51] I don't believe
[1:15:52] we did that
[1:15:53] with Attorney General Garland
[1:15:55] and I think
[1:15:58] the record
[1:15:59] of the Department of Justice
[1:16:01] under Todd Blanche
[1:16:04] lends itself
[1:16:05] to very vigorous oversight
[1:16:09] oversight
[1:16:10] which we have been denied
[1:16:12] because when we ask questions
[1:16:16] we get scripted litanies
[1:16:19] of insult and quarrel
[1:16:21] rather than actual answers
[1:16:22] to our questions
[1:16:24] when we ask for documents
[1:16:27] and records in writing
[1:16:29] we get nothing
[1:16:30] we are reduced
[1:16:32] to filing FOIA requests
[1:16:34] that are then not even complied with
[1:16:36] as FOIA requests
[1:16:38] so the oversight function
[1:16:43] of this committee
[1:16:44] is really I think
[1:16:46] being systematically disabled.
[1:16:48] That's particularly significant
[1:16:50] when you have Attorney General Bondi
[1:16:52] saying that it was Todd Blanche
[1:16:56] who was responsible
[1:16:58] for the Epstein files disaster
[1:17:02] the releases of private information
[1:17:05] and images of victims
[1:17:07] the cover-up of documents
[1:17:11] that named Donald Trump
[1:17:13] and just the general incompetence
[1:17:17] of the whole wretched mess.
[1:17:20] I don't think that it would be
[1:17:23] a good idea for this committee
[1:17:25] to be complicit
[1:17:28] in covering up
[1:17:30] the cover-up
[1:17:31] of the Epstein files.
[1:17:34] Move on to the slush fund
[1:17:37] which a great number
[1:17:39] of my Republican colleagues
[1:17:40] have expressed
[1:17:41] real reservations about
[1:17:43] with its attachment
[1:17:44] of a tax amnesty deal
[1:17:46] for Trump,
[1:17:48] the Trump family
[1:17:49] and the Trump businesses.
[1:17:52] There are very legitimate questions
[1:17:55] to be asked about that
[1:17:56] including has that cockamamie idea
[1:18:00] really been withdrawn
[1:18:01] or is it just being hidden briefly
[1:18:05] so it can resurface
[1:18:07] in some other fashion.
[1:18:09] We should be looking into this
[1:18:12] as a committee.
[1:18:13] It's important stuff
[1:18:15] and even if we shirk our duties
[1:18:18] at looking into all of this
[1:18:20] it appears that a Florida court
[1:18:23] is going to be looking into all of this
[1:18:25] and I think it's a bad look
[1:18:27] for the committee
[1:18:28] to be turning a blind eye
[1:18:30] to what went into
[1:18:31] the slush fund deal
[1:18:32] and the tax amnesty deal
[1:18:35] and then discover
[1:18:37] through a court proceeding
[1:18:39] in Florida
[1:18:39] all the stuff
[1:18:41] that we failed to look at.
[1:18:43] It's hard to be taken seriously
[1:18:45] if we have failed
[1:18:47] to do our own duty
[1:18:48] and then the court proceedings
[1:18:50] reveal the mischief.
[1:18:53] I will say that
[1:18:55] I've looked
[1:18:56] I have never ever heard
[1:19:01] of senior officials
[1:19:03] of the Department of Justice
[1:19:05] being called before a court
[1:19:09] with respect to a fraud
[1:19:12] upon the court.
[1:19:14] Look up fraud upon a court.
[1:19:16] It's a pretty serious charge.
[1:19:19] This one was brought,
[1:19:21] raised I guess I should say
[1:19:22] by 36, three dozen
[1:19:24] retired federal judges.
[1:19:25] Some very, very respected ones.
[1:19:27] Some very, very conservative ones.
[1:19:31] And the judge
[1:19:32] in the proceeding in Florida
[1:19:33] out of which
[1:19:34] the slush fund settlement emerged
[1:19:36] reopened the case
[1:19:37] to have a look.
[1:19:41] She asked for responses.
[1:19:47] She suggested that the DOJ
[1:19:48] might have violated
[1:19:50] its own policies
[1:19:50] in the settlement.
[1:19:52] She suggested that
[1:19:53] there was an IRS defense memo
[1:19:56] out there
[1:19:56] that would be relevant
[1:19:59] to the proceedings.
[1:20:03] The violation of DOJ policies
[1:20:04] would obviously be a matter
[1:20:05] for DOJ to answer.
[1:20:08] The IRS client memo
[1:20:10] would obviously be
[1:20:11] something for DOJ
[1:20:12] to answer.
[1:20:14] She also questioned
[1:20:16] whether there was collusion.
[1:20:18] It takes two to collude.
[1:20:20] It would be a collusion
[1:20:21] between the Department
[1:20:22] of Justice lawyers
[1:20:24] and Trump's private lawyers.
[1:20:27] So there's another reason
[1:20:28] for the Department of Justice
[1:20:30] to have responded.
[1:20:32] What happened last Friday?
[1:20:34] No response
[1:20:34] from the Department of Justice.
[1:20:36] First ever accusation
[1:20:38] of senior level
[1:20:39] Department of Justice people
[1:20:41] of fraud upon the court
[1:20:42] with an invitation
[1:20:43] to rebut the allegations,
[1:20:45] an invitation
[1:20:46] specific to Department
[1:20:48] of Justice conduct
[1:20:49] and they duck.
[1:20:53] So that is going to continue.
[1:20:57] The three dozen judges
[1:20:58] have their answer this Friday
[1:21:00] and then the court
[1:21:00] will go forward.
[1:21:02] I will contend
[1:21:02] that we don't look like much
[1:21:04] if that information
[1:21:06] is being developed
[1:21:07] in a federal courtroom
[1:21:08] and we haven't been allowed
[1:21:09] to ask questions
[1:21:10] and indeed our oversight
[1:21:12] has been collapsed
[1:21:13] into a confirmation hearing.
[1:21:16] I have never seen
[1:21:17] a Department of Justice
[1:21:18] as badly run
[1:21:19] as this one.
[1:21:20] I've never seen
[1:21:22] fraud upon the court allegations.
[1:21:24] I've never seen
[1:21:25] so many suggestions
[1:21:26] of contempt.
[1:21:27] I've never seen
[1:21:27] so many no true bills.
[1:21:29] I've never seen
[1:21:30] so many cases thrown out.
[1:21:31] I've never seen
[1:21:32] so many accusations
[1:21:33] that Department arguments
[1:21:35] were false,
[1:21:36] were pretextual,
[1:21:36] were designed to fool
[1:21:38] rather than inform
[1:21:39] the court.
[1:21:41] And we see that
[1:21:41] over and over again
[1:21:42] from judges appointed
[1:21:43] by every president.
[1:21:46] It is now at the point
[1:21:47] where the Department of Justice
[1:21:48] and the U.S. government
[1:21:49] have lost their presumption
[1:21:51] of regularity
[1:21:52] in federal court proceedings.
[1:21:56] All of this matters.
[1:21:58] All of this is something
[1:21:59] to which this committee
[1:22:00] should be paying attention.
[1:22:03] And with respect
[1:22:04] to what our chairman
[1:22:06] has said
[1:22:06] about the norms
[1:22:07] of the committee,
[1:22:09] well, one norm
[1:22:10] is that U.S. attorneys
[1:22:11] come through this committee
[1:22:12] after a process
[1:22:16] of consultation
[1:22:17] before they get
[1:22:19] to run U.S. attorney's office.
[1:22:21] over and over again
[1:22:23] we see these slippery deals
[1:22:26] where acting U.S. attorneys
[1:22:29] are appointed
[1:22:30] and then the first assistant
[1:22:33] is fired
[1:22:33] and when the time runs out
[1:22:36] on the acting U.S. attorney
[1:22:38] they slip back
[1:22:40] into the first attorney position
[1:22:41] and leave a vacancy.
[1:22:43] It's an obvious scam
[1:22:46] to get around
[1:22:48] this committee's norms.
[1:22:50] And we have put up with this.
[1:22:52] It didn't happen once.
[1:22:53] It didn't happen twice.
[1:22:54] It has happened over
[1:22:55] and over and over
[1:22:56] and over again.
[1:22:58] And on top of that
[1:22:59] we've seen U.S. attorneys
[1:23:00] called out for misconduct
[1:23:03] over and over and over again.
[1:23:05] None of this is normal.
[1:23:09] None of this is normal.
[1:23:11] And the fact that this committee
[1:23:12] won't look into it
[1:23:13] I think is a shame.
[1:23:16] And I think if we try
[1:23:17] to be complicit
[1:23:18] in failing in our duty
[1:23:20] to look into this
[1:23:21] by combining
[1:23:22] the Blanche nomination hearing
[1:23:24] with the Department of Justice
[1:23:25] oversight hearing
[1:23:26] we will have made
[1:23:27] a very, very grave mistake.
[1:23:30] I know that the chairman
[1:23:31] is sympathetic
[1:23:33] to the oversight problems
[1:23:36] that we face here
[1:23:37] and the degree to which
[1:23:38] this department's behavior
[1:23:39] is exceptional.
[1:23:41] And I look forward
[1:23:43] to having those hearings
[1:23:45] go forward in a way
[1:23:46] that reflects
[1:23:46] the chairman's
[1:23:48] consistent desires
[1:23:49] for real oversight.
[1:23:50] and I hope
[1:23:51] that the proceedings
[1:23:53] reflect that.
[1:23:55] I work together
[1:23:56] with the leaders
[1:23:57] of this bill
[1:23:58] Senator Coons
[1:23:59] and Senator Blackburn
[1:24:00] and I want to thank them
[1:24:01] from the very beginning.
[1:24:03] This builds on
[1:24:04] some of the work
[1:24:05] that Senator Cruz
[1:24:06] and I did
[1:24:07] on the Take It Down Act
[1:24:08] which is now signed
[1:24:09] into law
[1:24:09] and the provision
[1:24:10] requiring the platforms
[1:24:12] to take down
[1:24:13] non-consensual images
[1:24:14] in 48 hours
[1:24:15] is now actually
[1:24:16] in effect
[1:24:17] as well as
[1:24:19] the increased penalties
[1:24:20] for the people
[1:24:20] that post
[1:24:22] the illegal images.
[1:24:25] And I think
[1:24:26] this is a huge step forward
[1:24:27] and a model
[1:24:28] that we should be using
[1:24:29] in many contexts.
[1:24:32] And while this law
[1:24:33] that we did before
[1:24:34] the No Fakes Act
[1:24:35] focused on
[1:24:36] the non-consensual images
[1:24:38] and puts the rules
[1:24:41] of the road
[1:24:41] to give people control
[1:24:43] over digital replicas
[1:24:45] of their voice
[1:24:45] and likeness
[1:24:46] this goes to something
[1:24:48] that we know
[1:24:49] has been
[1:24:49] a real, real problem.
[1:24:51] It's important
[1:24:52] we pass this bill
[1:24:53] because it is easier
[1:24:54] than ever
[1:24:55] to use AI tools
[1:24:56] to generate everything
[1:24:58] from images
[1:24:59] and videos
[1:25:00] songs, recordings
[1:25:02] and even Senate hearings.
[1:25:04] In fact
[1:25:05] Senator Blackburn
[1:25:07] and I held
[1:25:08] a hearing
[1:25:09] on privacy
[1:25:10] that was actually
[1:25:11] a great subcommittee hearing.
[1:25:12] We walked out of there
[1:25:13] thinking this is so good
[1:25:14] maybe we can find
[1:25:15] a compromise on this
[1:25:16] and a day later
[1:25:17] I saw an image of myself
[1:25:19] and I thought
[1:25:20] oh wow
[1:25:20] this thing is getting
[1:25:22] so much attention.
[1:25:23] It was me
[1:25:24] and she was sitting
[1:25:24] next to me
[1:25:25] and my staff
[1:25:26] was behind me
[1:25:27] and it was actually
[1:25:28] an AI image.
[1:25:29] Now that might have been
[1:25:30] considered parody.
[1:25:31] I didn't think
[1:25:32] it was very funny
[1:25:32] with what they said.
[1:25:34] They somehow put me
[1:25:35] in the middle
[1:25:35] of the Sydney
[1:25:36] Sweeney jeans
[1:25:37] campaign issue
[1:25:38] but it was startling
[1:25:40] as I looked at my feed
[1:25:41] and finally the platforms
[1:25:44] either took it down
[1:25:45] or put digitally altered
[1:25:46] on it.
[1:25:47] A number of people
[1:25:47] believed that
[1:25:48] they believed
[1:25:49] I used language
[1:25:50] that I would never use
[1:25:52] in this hearing room.
[1:25:53] They believed
[1:25:53] I said things
[1:25:54] that I would never say
[1:25:55] and to me
[1:25:56] it was an example
[1:25:57] of how quickly
[1:25:58] these things can go viral.
[1:26:01] So what happened here
[1:26:02] and by the way
[1:26:03] if it is parody
[1:26:04] I believe it should
[1:26:05] I have another piece
[1:26:06] of legislation
[1:26:07] that says that
[1:26:07] it should say
[1:26:08] digitally altered.
[1:26:10] So technology
[1:26:11] led to incredible things.
[1:26:13] Last year
[1:26:13] we did an event
[1:26:14] the four of us
[1:26:15] with Randy Travis
[1:26:16] who lost his ability
[1:26:17] to sing
[1:26:18] after having a stroke
[1:26:20] and using AI replicas
[1:26:22] of his own voice
[1:26:23] he's been able
[1:26:24] to continue
[1:26:24] putting out music
[1:26:25] but that's because
[1:26:26] it's his voice
[1:26:27] it's his decision.
[1:26:29] Easy access
[1:26:30] to this technology
[1:26:31] has created
[1:26:32] real challenges
[1:26:33] that harm real people.
[1:26:34] Sony Music
[1:26:35] has identified
[1:26:36] more than
[1:26:36] 135,000 songs
[1:26:39] with unauthorized
[1:26:40] deepfakes
[1:26:40] on streaming services.
[1:26:43] So so much
[1:26:43] of what our country
[1:26:44] is based on
[1:26:45] and our innovation
[1:26:46] and our economy
[1:26:47] is based on
[1:26:48] ideas
[1:26:49] innovation
[1:26:49] people's intellectual
[1:26:51] products
[1:26:52] their own
[1:26:53] creations
[1:26:54] and if we mess around
[1:26:55] with this
[1:26:56] with AI
[1:26:56] and don't reward them
[1:26:58] for that
[1:26:58] we're going to mess around
[1:26:59] with our entire economy.
[1:27:01] It isn't just artists
[1:27:02] consumers lost
[1:27:04] more than $3.5 billion
[1:27:06] through imposter schemes
[1:27:08] and so that's why
[1:27:09] this bill
[1:27:10] is so important
[1:27:11] everyone should have
[1:27:12] the right to privacy
[1:27:13] and the right
[1:27:13] to control
[1:27:14] their own voice
[1:27:15] and their own likeness
[1:27:17] and I'll just end
[1:27:18] by thanking
[1:27:18] the consumer
[1:27:19] artists
[1:27:20] entertainment
[1:27:21] labor
[1:27:21] tech stakeholders
[1:27:23] that have come together
[1:27:24] to support this bill
[1:27:26] you must know
[1:27:27] something's going right
[1:27:28] Senator Blackburn
[1:27:29] when you can announce
[1:27:30] that you have
[1:27:30] the American Medical Association
[1:27:32] and SAG Act
[1:27:33] supporting the same bill
[1:27:35] it's just a
[1:27:35] usually these interests
[1:27:36] don't align on something
[1:27:38] it's not like
[1:27:38] they're opposed
[1:27:39] but it just shows
[1:27:40] the broad
[1:27:41] coalition
[1:27:42] that supports
[1:27:43] doing something
[1:27:44] about this
[1:27:45] challenging
[1:27:46] and growing problem
[1:27:47] thank you.
[1:27:47] this is an extraordinarily
[1:27:53] ill-motivated
[1:27:54] candidate
[1:27:55] for the judiciary
[1:27:56] who has
[1:27:58] expressly said
[1:27:59] it's not his intention
[1:28:00] to follow the law
[1:28:00] but rather to impose
[1:28:02] his view
[1:28:02] of what he calls
[1:28:03] traditional
[1:28:04] western values
[1:28:05] he has derided
[1:28:07] textualism
[1:28:08] and indeed said
[1:28:09] a court
[1:28:10] that correctly
[1:28:11] decides cases
[1:28:12] on narrow grounds
[1:28:13] without upsetting
[1:28:16] long set
[1:28:17] but badly flawed
[1:28:18] precedents
[1:28:19] will not be much use
[1:28:20] that is unacceptable
[1:28:22] for the conservative
[1:28:23] movement of today
[1:28:25] in his own words
[1:28:27] he will use
[1:28:29] his seat on the bench
[1:28:30] to impose
[1:28:31] his view
[1:28:32] of traditional
[1:28:33] western values
[1:28:34] to press
[1:28:35] for the conservative
[1:28:36] movement of today
[1:28:37] and will avoid
[1:28:39] and indeed
[1:28:40] seems to mock
[1:28:41] the notion
[1:28:42] of correctly
[1:28:42] deciding cases
[1:28:44] on narrow grounds
[1:28:45] textualism
[1:28:46] and minimalism
[1:28:47] used to be
[1:28:48] conservative values
[1:28:49] this does not
[1:28:50] provide that
[1:28:51] the clerk will call
[1:28:52] the roll on flowers
[1:28:54] flag for my colleagues
[1:28:55] that this individual
[1:28:56] represents
[1:28:57] president trump
[1:28:58] personally
[1:28:58] in his appeal
[1:29:00] of the 34
[1:29:01] felony convictions
[1:29:02] for falsifying
[1:29:03] business records
[1:29:04] related to his
[1:29:05] payments to
[1:29:06] stormy daniels
[1:29:08] and also
[1:29:09] in the 464 million
[1:29:11] dollar judgment
[1:29:11] against trump
[1:29:13] and his family members
[1:29:13] and his business
[1:29:14] for inflated
[1:29:15] value
[1:29:16] of business
[1:29:17] assets
[1:29:17] the president
[1:29:19] still owes
[1:29:19] the firm
[1:29:20] $400,000
[1:29:21] evidently
[1:29:22] and notwithstanding
[1:29:24] the chairman's
[1:29:24] comments earlier
[1:29:25] about following
[1:29:26] norms
[1:29:26] no blue slip
[1:29:27] from either
[1:29:28] of the New York
[1:29:28] senators
[1:29:29] I urge a no vote
[1:29:30] the clerk will call
[1:29:32] the clerk will call
[1:29:32] the roll on schwartz
[1:29:33] thank you mr. chairman
[1:29:35] i want to offer my
[1:29:36] strong support for the
[1:29:37] no fakes act today
[1:29:38] throughout my time in
[1:29:39] congress i've proudly
[1:29:40] represented the creative
[1:29:42] capital of the world
[1:29:43] and i've always believed
[1:29:44] that our creative economy
[1:29:45] and hundreds of thousands
[1:29:47] of hard-working people
[1:29:48] behind it deserve strong
[1:29:49] protections
[1:29:50] for their talents
[1:29:51] voices and likeness
[1:29:52] which make up the
[1:29:53] foundation of their
[1:29:54] livelihoods
[1:29:54] but in the advent of ai
[1:29:56] those livelihoods as well
[1:29:57] as the identities
[1:29:58] of everyday americans
[1:29:59] are under threat
[1:30:00] the rapid advancement
[1:30:02] of generative ai
[1:30:03] has brought incredible
[1:30:04] innovation but it's also
[1:30:05] unleashed a wave
[1:30:06] of unauthorized exploitation
[1:30:08] we see this in the voices
[1:30:10] and visual likenesses
[1:30:11] of individuals
[1:30:12] from celebrities
[1:30:14] to children
[1:30:14] being replicated
[1:30:16] and weaponized
[1:30:17] without their permission
[1:30:18] and sometimes
[1:30:19] without their knowledge
[1:30:21] that is why i've long
[1:30:22] supported the no fakes act
[1:30:23] this legislation
[1:30:25] backed by a wide coalition
[1:30:26] establishes a clear
[1:30:27] federal right
[1:30:28] protecting all individuals
[1:30:29] from unauthorized
[1:30:31] digital replicas
[1:30:33] the performers
[1:30:34] and voice actors
[1:30:35] who power a country's
[1:30:36] greatest cultural export
[1:30:37] deserve to know
[1:30:38] that their faces
[1:30:39] and voices won't be used
[1:30:40] to replace them
[1:30:41] in order to protect
[1:30:42] human creativity
[1:30:43] and prevent against
[1:30:44] worse exploitation
[1:30:46] i urge my colleagues
[1:30:48] to support this bill
[1:30:49] and i yield back
[1:30:50] chairman
[1:30:51] i'm in this seat
[1:30:54] this morning
[1:30:55] because
[1:30:56] illinois
[1:30:58] senator durbin
[1:31:00] was a close friend
[1:31:03] of illinois senator
[1:31:04] obama
[1:31:05] and then u.s. president
[1:31:07] obama
[1:31:08] and today
[1:31:10] in a star-studded
[1:31:12] celebration
[1:31:14] the obama presidential library
[1:31:16] is going to open
[1:31:17] and
[1:31:18] senator durbin
[1:31:20] very very much
[1:31:20] wanted to be there
[1:31:22] i think he is
[1:31:23] exactly where
[1:31:24] he should be
[1:31:25] and that leaves me
[1:31:27] to fill in
[1:31:28] for him
[1:31:29] today
[1:31:29] i'd like to take
[1:31:32] my time this morning
[1:31:33] to suggest
[1:31:35] that
[1:31:36] combining
[1:31:38] our oversight
[1:31:40] hearing of the
[1:31:41] department of justice
[1:31:42] with the nominations
[1:31:45] hearing
[1:31:45] for
[1:31:47] acting attorney general
[1:31:49] blanche
[1:31:50] would be a
[1:31:51] grave
[1:31:52] mistake
[1:31:53] for the committee
[1:31:55] i don't believe we did that
[1:31:57] with attorney general garland
[1:32:00] and i think
[1:32:02] the record
[1:32:03] of the department of justice
[1:32:05] under todd blanche
[1:32:08] lends itself
[1:32:09] to very
[1:32:10] vigorous
[1:32:12] oversight
[1:32:13] oversight
[1:32:15] which we have been denied
[1:32:16] because
[1:32:18] when we
[1:32:19] ask questions
[1:32:20] we get
[1:32:21] scripted litanies
[1:32:23] of insult
[1:32:24] and quarrel
[1:32:25] rather than
[1:32:26] actual answers
[1:32:27] to our
[1:32:27] questions
[1:32:28] when we
[1:32:29] ask for
[1:32:31] documents
[1:32:32] and records
[1:32:32] in writing
[1:32:33] we get
[1:32:34] nothing
[1:32:34] we are reduced
[1:32:36] to filing
[1:32:37] foia requests
[1:32:38] that are then
[1:32:39] not even complied
[1:32:40] with as foia
[1:32:41] requests
[1:32:42] so
[1:32:44] the
[1:32:45] oversight
[1:32:46] function
[1:32:47] of this committee
[1:32:49] is really
[1:32:50] i think being
[1:32:50] systematically
[1:32:51] disabled
[1:32:52] that's particularly
[1:32:54] significant
[1:32:54] when you have
[1:32:55] attorney general
[1:32:56] bondi
[1:32:56] saying that it was
[1:32:59] todd blanche
[1:33:00] who was
[1:33:01] responsible for
[1:33:02] the epstein
[1:33:04] files
[1:33:05] disaster
[1:33:06] the releases
[1:33:08] of private
[1:33:09] information
[1:33:09] and images
[1:33:10] of victims
[1:33:11] the cover up
[1:33:13] of documents
[1:33:15] that named
[1:33:17] donald trump
[1:33:18] and just the
[1:33:19] general incompetence
[1:33:21] of the whole
[1:33:22] wretched mess
[1:33:24] i don't think
[1:33:26] that it would be
[1:33:28] a good idea
[1:33:28] for this committee
[1:33:29] to be complicit
[1:33:32] in covering up
[1:33:34] the cover up
[1:33:35] of the epstein
[1:33:37] files
[1:33:38] move on to
[1:33:40] the slush fund
[1:33:41] which a great
[1:33:42] number of my
[1:33:43] republican colleagues
[1:33:44] have expressed
[1:33:45] real reservations
[1:33:46] about
[1:33:47] with its
[1:33:48] attachment
[1:33:49] of a tax
[1:33:49] amnesty deal
[1:33:50] for trump
[1:33:52] the trump
[1:33:53] family
[1:33:53] and the trump
[1:33:54] businesses
[1:33:55] there are very
[1:33:58] legitimate questions
[1:33:59] to be asked
[1:34:00] about that
[1:34:00] including
[1:34:02] has that cockamamie
[1:34:04] idea really
[1:34:05] been withdrawn
[1:34:05] or is it just
[1:34:08] being hidden
[1:34:08] briefly
[1:34:09] so it can resurface
[1:34:11] in some other
[1:34:12] fashion
[1:34:12] we should be looking
[1:34:15] into this as a committee
[1:34:17] it's important
[1:34:18] stuff
[1:34:19] and even if we
[1:34:21] shirk our duties
[1:34:22] at looking into
[1:34:23] all of this
[1:34:24] it appears
[1:34:25] that a florida court
[1:34:27] is going to be looking
[1:34:28] into all of this
[1:34:29] and i think it's a bad
[1:34:31] look for the committee
[1:34:32] to be turning a blind eye
[1:34:34] to what went into
[1:34:35] the slush fund deal
[1:34:36] and the tax amnesty
[1:34:38] deal
[1:34:39] and then discover
[1:34:41] through a court
[1:34:42] proceeding in florida
[1:34:44] all the stuff
[1:34:45] that we
[1:34:46] failed to look at
[1:34:47] it's hard to be
[1:34:48] taken seriously
[1:34:49] if we have failed
[1:34:51] to do our own duty
[1:34:52] and then
[1:34:53] the court proceedings
[1:34:55] reveal
[1:34:56] the mischief
[1:34:57] i will say that
[1:34:59] i've looked
[1:35:00] i have never
[1:35:02] ever
[1:35:04] heard
[1:35:05] of senior officials
[1:35:07] of the department
[1:35:09] of justice
[1:35:10] being called
[1:35:12] before a court
[1:35:13] with respect
[1:35:15] to a fraud
[1:35:16] upon the court
[1:35:17] look up
[1:35:18] fraud upon a court
[1:35:20] it's a pretty
[1:35:21] serious charge
[1:35:22] this one
[1:35:24] was brought
[1:35:24] raised
[1:35:25] i guess i should say
[1:35:26] by 36
[1:35:27] three dozen
[1:35:28] retired federal judges
[1:35:29] some very very
[1:35:30] respected ones
[1:35:31] some very very
[1:35:32] conservative ones
[1:35:33] and the judge
[1:35:36] in the proceeding
[1:35:36] in florida
[1:35:37] out of which
[1:35:38] the slush fund
[1:35:39] settlement emerged
[1:35:40] reopened the case
[1:35:41] to have a look
[1:35:42] she asked
[1:35:48] for responses
[1:35:49] she suggested
[1:35:51] that the doj
[1:35:52] might have violated
[1:35:54] its own policies
[1:35:55] in the settlement
[1:35:55] she suggested
[1:35:57] that there was
[1:35:58] an irs defense
[1:35:59] memo out there
[1:36:00] that would be
[1:36:02] relevant to the
[1:36:04] proceedings
[1:36:04] the violation
[1:36:07] of doj policies
[1:36:08] would obviously
[1:36:09] be a matter
[1:36:10] for doj
[1:36:10] to answer
[1:36:11] the irs client
[1:36:13] memo would
[1:36:14] obviously be
[1:36:15] something for
[1:36:16] doj to answer
[1:36:18] she also questioned
[1:36:20] whether there was
[1:36:20] collusion
[1:36:21] it takes two
[1:36:23] to collude
[1:36:24] it would be
[1:36:25] a collusion
[1:36:26] between the
[1:36:26] department of
[1:36:27] justice lawyers
[1:36:28] and trump's
[1:36:29] private lawyers
[1:36:30] so there's another
[1:36:32] reason for the
[1:36:33] department of justice
[1:36:34] to have responded
[1:36:36] what happened
[1:36:37] last friday
[1:36:37] no response
[1:36:38] from the
[1:36:39] department of
[1:36:39] justice
[1:36:40] first ever
[1:36:41] accusation
[1:36:42] of senior level
[1:36:43] department of
[1:36:44] justice people
[1:36:45] of fraud upon
[1:36:46] the court
[1:36:46] with an invitation
[1:36:47] to rebut the
[1:36:48] allegations
[1:36:49] an invitation
[1:36:50] specific
[1:36:51] to department
[1:36:52] of justice
[1:36:53] conduct
[1:36:53] and they duck
[1:36:56] so that
[1:36:58] is going to
[1:37:00] continue
[1:37:00] the three dozen
[1:37:02] judges have their
[1:37:03] answer this friday
[1:37:04] and then the court
[1:37:04] will go forward
[1:37:05] i will contend
[1:37:07] that we don't look
[1:37:07] like much
[1:37:08] if that information
[1:37:10] is being developed
[1:37:11] in a federal
[1:37:12] courtroom
[1:37:12] and we haven't been
[1:37:13] allowed to ask
[1:37:14] questions
[1:37:14] and indeed
[1:37:15] our oversight
[1:37:16] has been collapsed
[1:37:17] into a confirmation
[1:37:19] hearing
[1:37:19] i have never seen
[1:37:21] a department of justice
[1:37:22] as badly run
[1:37:23] as this one
[1:37:25] i've never seen
[1:37:26] fraud upon the court
[1:37:28] allegations
[1:37:28] i've never seen
[1:37:29] so many suggestions
[1:37:30] of contempt
[1:37:30] i've never seen
[1:37:31] so many no true
[1:37:32] bills
[1:37:33] i've never seen
[1:37:34] so many cases
[1:37:35] thrown out
[1:37:35] i've never seen
[1:37:36] so many accusations
[1:37:37] that department
[1:37:39] arguments were false
[1:37:40] were pretextual
[1:37:41] were designed to fool
[1:37:42] rather than inform
[1:37:43] the court
[1:37:44] and we see that
[1:37:45] over and over again
[1:37:46] from judges appointed
[1:37:47] by every president
[1:37:49] it is now at the point
[1:37:51] where the department
[1:37:52] of justice
[1:37:52] and the u.s.
[1:37:53] government
[1:37:53] have lost
[1:37:55] their presumption
[1:37:56] of regularity
[1:37:57] in federal court
[1:37:58] proceedings
[1:37:58] all of this matters
[1:38:01] all of this is something
[1:38:03] to which this committee
[1:38:04] should be paying
[1:38:05] attention
[1:38:06] and with respect
[1:38:08] to what
[1:38:09] our chairman
[1:38:10] has said
[1:38:10] about the norms
[1:38:11] of the committee
[1:38:12] well one norm
[1:38:14] is that u.s. attorneys
[1:38:15] come through this committee
[1:38:16] after a
[1:38:19] process of consultation
[1:38:21] before they get
[1:38:23] to run u.s. attorney's office
[1:38:25] over and over again
[1:38:27] we see these slippery deals
[1:38:30] where acting
[1:38:32] u.s. attorneys
[1:38:33] are appointed
[1:38:34] and then
[1:38:35] the first assistant
[1:38:37] is fired
[1:38:38] and when the time
[1:38:39] runs out
[1:38:40] on the acting
[1:38:41] u.s. attorney
[1:38:42] they slip back
[1:38:44] into the first attorney
[1:38:45] position
[1:38:45] and leave a vacancy
[1:38:47] it's an obvious
[1:38:49] scam
[1:38:50] to get around
[1:38:52] this committee's
[1:38:53] norms
[1:38:54] and we have put up
[1:38:55] with this
[1:38:56] it didn't happen once
[1:38:57] it didn't happen twice
[1:38:58] it has happened over
[1:38:59] and over
[1:39:00] and over
[1:39:00] and over again
[1:39:01] and on top of that
[1:39:03] we've seen u.s. attorneys
[1:39:04] called out for misconduct
[1:39:07] over and over
[1:39:08] and over again
[1:39:09] none of this is normal
[1:39:11] none of this is normal
[1:39:14] and the fact that
[1:39:15] this committee
[1:39:16] won't look into it
[1:39:17] I think is a shame
[1:39:19] and I think if we try
[1:39:21] to be complicit
[1:39:22] in failing
[1:39:23] in our duty
[1:39:24] to look into this
[1:39:25] by combining
[1:39:26] the blanche nomination hearing
[1:39:28] with the department
[1:39:29] of justice oversight hearing
[1:39:30] we will have made
[1:39:31] a very very grave
[1:39:33] mistake
[1:39:34] I know that the
[1:39:35] chairman is
[1:39:36] sympathetic
[1:39:37] to the oversight
[1:39:39] problems that we face here
[1:39:41] and the degree to which
[1:39:42] this department's behavior
[1:39:44] is exceptional
[1:39:44] and
[1:39:46] I look forward to
[1:39:47] having those hearings
[1:39:49] go forward in a way
[1:39:50] that reflects
[1:39:51] the chairman's
[1:39:52] consistent desires
[1:39:54] for real oversight
[1:39:54] and I hope that the
[1:39:56] proceedings reflect
[1:39:58] that
[1:39:59] together with the leaders
[1:40:01] of this bill
[1:40:02] Senator Coons
[1:40:03] and Senator Blackburn
[1:40:04] and I want to thank them
[1:40:05] from the very beginning
[1:40:06] this builds on
[1:40:08] some of the work
[1:40:09] that Senator Cruz
[1:40:10] and I did
[1:40:11] on the Take It Down Act
[1:40:12] which is now signed
[1:40:13] into law
[1:40:13] and the provision
[1:40:14] requiring the platforms
[1:40:16] to take down
[1:40:17] non-consensual images
[1:40:18] in 48 hours
[1:40:19] is now actually
[1:40:21] in effect
[1:40:21] as well as
[1:40:23] the increased penalties
[1:40:24] for the people
[1:40:24] that post
[1:40:26] the illegal images
[1:40:28] and I think
[1:40:30] this is a huge
[1:40:31] step forward
[1:40:31] and a model
[1:40:32] that we should be using
[1:40:33] in many contexts
[1:40:35] and while this law
[1:40:37] that we did before
[1:40:38] the No Fakes Act
[1:40:39] focused on the
[1:40:40] non-consensual images
[1:40:43] and puts the rules
[1:40:45] of the road
[1:40:45] to give people
[1:40:47] control
[1:40:47] over digital replicas
[1:40:49] of their voice
[1:40:50] and likeness
[1:40:50] this goes
[1:40:51] to something
[1:40:52] that we know
[1:40:53] has been
[1:40:53] a real, real problem
[1:40:55] it's important
[1:40:56] we pass this bill
[1:40:57] because it is
[1:40:58] easier than ever
[1:40:59] to use AI tools
[1:41:00] to generate everything
[1:41:02] from images
[1:41:03] and videos
[1:41:04] songs
[1:41:06] recordings
[1:41:06] and even
[1:41:07] senate hearings
[1:41:08] in fact
[1:41:09] Senator Blackburn
[1:41:11] and I held
[1:41:12] a hearing
[1:41:13] on privacy
[1:41:14] that was actually
[1:41:15] a great subcommittee
[1:41:16] hearing
[1:41:16] we walked out of there
[1:41:17] thinking this is so good
[1:41:18] maybe we can find
[1:41:19] a compromise
[1:41:20] on this
[1:41:20] and a day later
[1:41:21] I saw an image
[1:41:22] of myself
[1:41:23] and I thought
[1:41:24] oh wow
[1:41:24] this thing
[1:41:26] is getting
[1:41:26] so much attention
[1:41:27] it was me
[1:41:28] and she was sitting
[1:41:28] next to me
[1:41:29] and my staff
[1:41:30] was behind me
[1:41:31] and it was actually
[1:41:32] an AI image
[1:41:33] now that might have
[1:41:34] been considered parody
[1:41:35] I didn't think
[1:41:36] it was very funny
[1:41:36] with what they said
[1:41:37] they somehow put me
[1:41:39] in the middle
[1:41:39] of the Sydney
[1:41:40] Sweeney jeans
[1:41:41] campaign issue
[1:41:42] but it was startling
[1:41:44] as I looked
[1:41:45] at my feed
[1:41:45] and finally
[1:41:46] the platforms
[1:41:48] either took it down
[1:41:49] or put digitally
[1:41:50] altered on it
[1:41:51] a number of people
[1:41:52] believed that
[1:41:52] they believed
[1:41:53] I used language
[1:41:55] that I would never use
[1:41:56] in this hearing room
[1:41:57] they believed
[1:41:58] I said things
[1:41:58] that I would never say
[1:41:59] and to me
[1:42:00] it was an example
[1:42:01] of how quickly
[1:42:02] these things
[1:42:03] can go viral
[1:42:04] so what happened here
[1:42:06] and by the way
[1:42:07] if it is parody
[1:42:08] I believe it should
[1:42:09] I have another piece
[1:42:10] of legislation
[1:42:11] that says
[1:42:11] that it should say
[1:42:12] digitally altered
[1:42:13] so technology
[1:42:15] led to incredible things
[1:42:17] last year
[1:42:17] we did an event
[1:42:18] the four of us
[1:42:19] with Randy Travis
[1:42:20] who lost his ability
[1:42:21] to sing
[1:42:22] after having a stroke
[1:42:24] and using AI replicas
[1:42:26] of his own voice
[1:42:27] he's been able
[1:42:28] to continue
[1:42:28] putting out music
[1:42:29] but that's because
[1:42:30] it's his voice
[1:42:31] it's his decision
[1:42:32] easy access
[1:42:34] to this technology
[1:42:35] has created
[1:42:36] real challenges
[1:42:37] that harm real people
[1:42:38] Sony Music
[1:42:39] has identified
[1:42:40] more than 135,000 songs
[1:42:43] with unauthorized
[1:42:44] deep fakes
[1:42:45] on streaming services
[1:42:46] so so much
[1:42:47] of what our country
[1:42:48] is based on
[1:42:49] and our innovation
[1:42:50] and our economy
[1:42:51] is based on ideas
[1:42:53] innovation
[1:42:53] people's intellectual
[1:42:55] products
[1:42:56] their own creations
[1:42:58] and if we mess around
[1:42:59] with this with AI
[1:43:00] and don't reward them
[1:43:02] for that
[1:43:02] we're going to mess around
[1:43:03] with our entire economy
[1:43:05] it isn't just artists
[1:43:07] consumers lost
[1:43:08] more than 3.5 billion dollars
[1:43:10] through imposter schemes
[1:43:12] and so that's why
[1:43:13] this bill is so important
[1:43:15] everyone should have
[1:43:16] the right to privacy
[1:43:17] and the right to control
[1:43:18] their own voice
[1:43:19] and their own likeness
[1:43:21] and I'll just end
[1:43:22] by thanking the consumer
[1:43:23] artists
[1:43:24] entertainment
[1:43:25] labor
[1:43:26] tech stakeholders
[1:43:27] that have come together
[1:43:29] to support this bill
[1:43:30] you must know
[1:43:31] something's going right
[1:43:32] Senator Blackburn
[1:43:33] when you can announce
[1:43:34] that you have the
[1:43:35] American Medical Association
[1:43:36] and SAG Actra
[1:43:37] supporting the same bill
[1:43:39] it's just a
[1:43:39] usually these interests
[1:43:41] don't align on something
[1:43:42] it's not like they're
[1:43:43] opposed
[1:43:43] but it just shows
[1:43:44] the broad coalition
[1:43:47] that supports
[1:43:47] doing something
[1:43:48] about this challenging
[1:43:50] and growing problem
[1:43:51] thank you
[1:43:51] before Senator Padilla
[1:43:54] and then Senator Cruz
[1:43:55] this is an extraordinarily
[1:43:57] ill-motivated candidate
[1:44:00] for the judiciary
[1:44:01] who has expressly said
[1:44:03] it's not his intention
[1:44:04] to follow the law
[1:44:05] but rather to impose
[1:44:06] his view of what he calls
[1:44:07] traditional western values
[1:44:10] he has derided textualism
[1:44:12] and indeed said
[1:44:13] a court that correctly
[1:44:15] decides cases
[1:44:16] on narrow grounds
[1:44:18] without upsetting
[1:44:20] long set
[1:44:21] but badly flawed precedents
[1:44:23] will not be much use
[1:44:24] that is unacceptable
[1:44:26] for the conservative
[1:44:27] movement of today
[1:44:30] in his own words
[1:44:31] he will use his seat
[1:44:34] on the bench
[1:44:34] to impose
[1:44:35] his view of traditional
[1:44:37] western values
[1:44:38] to press
[1:44:39] for the conservative
[1:44:40] movement of today
[1:44:41] and will avoid
[1:44:43] and indeed
[1:44:44] seems to mock
[1:44:45] the notion
[1:44:46] of correctly
[1:44:47] deciding cases
[1:44:48] on narrow grounds
[1:44:49] textualism
[1:44:51] and minimalism
[1:44:51] used to be
[1:44:52] conservative values
[1:44:53] this does not
[1:44:54] provide that
[1:44:55] the clerk will call
[1:44:57] the roll on flowers
[1:44:58] flag for my colleagues
[1:44:59] that this individual
[1:45:00] represents
[1:45:01] President Trump
[1:45:02] personally
[1:45:03] in his appeal
[1:45:04] of the 34
[1:45:05] felony convictions
[1:45:06] for falsifying business records
[1:45:08] related to his payments
[1:45:10] to Stormy Daniels
[1:45:12] and also
[1:45:13] in the 464 million dollar judgment
[1:45:15] against Trump
[1:45:17] and his family members
[1:45:18] and his business
[1:45:18] for inflated value
[1:45:20] of business assets
[1:45:22] the president still owes
[1:45:23] the firm
[1:45:24] $400,000 evidently
[1:45:26] and notwithstanding
[1:45:28] the chairman's comments
[1:45:29] earlier about following norms
[1:45:30] no blue slip
[1:45:31] from either of the New York
[1:45:33] senators
[1:45:33] I urge a no vote
[1:45:34] the clerk will call
[1:45:36] the roll on Schwartz
[1:45:38] thank you Mr. Chairman
[1:45:39] I want to offer
[1:45:40] my strong support
[1:45:41] for the no fakes act today
[1:45:42] throughout my time
[1:45:43] in Congress
[1:45:44] I've proudly represented
[1:45:45] the creative capital
[1:45:46] of the world
[1:45:47] and I've always believed
[1:45:48] that our creative economy
[1:45:50] and hundreds of thousands
[1:45:51] of hardworking people
[1:45:52] behind it
[1:45:53] deserve strong protections
[1:45:54] for their talents
[1:45:55] voices and likeness
[1:45:56] which make up
[1:45:57] the foundation
[1:45:58] of their livelihoods
[1:45:59] but in the advent of AI
[1:46:00] those livelihoods
[1:46:01] as well as the identities
[1:46:02] of everyday Americans
[1:46:03] are under threat
[1:46:04] the rapid advancement
[1:46:06] of generative AI
[1:46:07] has brought incredible innovation
[1:46:09] but it's also unleashed
[1:46:10] a wave of unauthorized exploitation
[1:46:12] we see this in the voices
[1:46:14] and visual likenesses
[1:46:16] of individuals
[1:46:16] from celebrities
[1:46:18] to children
[1:46:19] being replicated
[1:46:20] and weaponized
[1:46:21] without their permission
[1:46:22] and sometimes
[1:46:23] without their knowledge
[1:46:25] that is why
[1:46:26] I've long supported
[1:46:26] the no fakes act
[1:46:27] this legislation
[1:46:29] backed by a wide coalition
[1:46:30] establishes a clear
[1:46:31] federal right
[1:46:32] protecting all individuals
[1:46:33] from unauthorized
[1:46:35] digital replicas
[1:46:37] the performers
[1:46:38] and voice actors
[1:46:39] who power a country's
[1:46:40] greatest cultural export
[1:46:41] deserve to know
[1:46:42] that their faces
[1:46:43] and voices
[1:46:44] won't be used
[1:46:44] to replace them
[1:46:45] in order to protect
[1:46:47] human creativity
[1:46:47] and prevent against
[1:46:48] worse exploitation
[1:46:51] I urge my colleagues
[1:46:52] to support this bill
[1:46:53] and I yield back
[1:46:54] Chairman
[1:46:55] I'm in this seat
[1:46:58] this morning
[1:46:59] because Illinois
[1:47:02] Senator Durbin
[1:47:04] was a close friend
[1:47:07] of Illinois Senator Obama
[1:47:10] and then U.S. President Obama
[1:47:12] and today
[1:47:14] in a star-studded celebration
[1:47:18] the Obama Presidential Library
[1:47:20] is going to open
[1:47:21] and Senator Durbin
[1:47:24] very very much
[1:47:24] wanted to be there
[1:47:26] I think he is
[1:47:27] exactly where
[1:47:28] he should be
[1:47:29] and that leaves me
[1:47:31] to fill in
[1:47:32] for him today
[1:47:34] I'd like to take
[1:47:36] my time this morning
[1:47:37] to suggest
[1:47:39] that combining
[1:47:42] our oversight hearing
[1:47:45] of the Department of Justice
[1:47:46] with the nominations hearing
[1:47:49] for Acting Attorney General Blanche
[1:47:54] would be a grave mistake
[1:47:57] for the committee
[1:47:59] I don't believe
[1:48:00] we did that
[1:48:01] with Attorney General Garland
[1:48:04] and I think
[1:48:06] the record
[1:48:07] of the Department of Justice
[1:48:10] under Todd Blanche
[1:48:12] lends itself
[1:48:13] to very vigorous oversight
[1:48:17] oversight
[1:48:19] which we have been denied
[1:48:21] because when we ask questions
[1:48:24] we get scripted litanies
[1:48:27] of insult and quarrel
[1:48:29] rather than actual answers
[1:48:31] to our questions
[1:48:32] when we ask for documents
[1:48:36] and records in writing
[1:48:37] we get nothing
[1:48:38] we are reduced to filing
[1:48:41] FOIA requests
[1:48:42] that are then not even
[1:48:44] complied with as FOIA requests
[1:48:47] so the oversight function
[1:48:51] of this committee
[1:48:53] is really I think
[1:48:54] being systematically disabled
[1:48:56] that's particularly significant
[1:48:58] when you have
[1:48:59] Attorney General Bondi
[1:49:01] saying that it was
[1:49:03] Todd Blanche
[1:49:04] who was responsible
[1:49:06] for the Epstein files disaster
[1:49:10] the releases
[1:49:12] of private information
[1:49:13] and images
[1:49:14] of victims
[1:49:15] the cover-up
[1:49:17] of documents
[1:49:19] that named
[1:49:21] Donald Trump
[1:49:22] and just the general
[1:49:24] incompetence
[1:49:25] of the whole
[1:49:26] wretched mess
[1:49:28] I don't think
[1:49:31] that it would be
[1:49:32] a good idea
[1:49:32] for this committee
[1:49:33] to be complicit
[1:49:36] in covering up
[1:49:38] the cover-up
[1:49:39] of the Epstein files
[1:49:42] move on to
[1:49:44] the slush fund
[1:49:45] which a great number
[1:49:47] of my Republican colleagues
[1:49:49] have expressed
[1:49:50] real reservations about
[1:49:51] with its attachment
[1:49:53] of a tax amnesty deal
[1:49:54] for Trump
[1:49:56] the Trump family
[1:49:57] and the Trump businesses
[1:50:00] there are very legitimate
[1:50:03] questions to be asked
[1:50:04] about that
[1:50:05] including
[1:50:06] has that cockamamie idea
[1:50:08] really been withdrawn
[1:50:09] or is it just
[1:50:12] being hidden briefly
[1:50:13] so it can resurface
[1:50:15] in some other fashion
[1:50:17] we should be looking
[1:50:20] into this as a committee
[1:50:21] it's important stuff
[1:50:23] and even if we
[1:50:25] shirk our duties
[1:50:26] at looking into
[1:50:27] all of this
[1:50:28] it appears
[1:50:29] that a Florida court
[1:50:31] is going to be looking
[1:50:32] into all of this
[1:50:33] and I think it's a bad look
[1:50:35] for the committee
[1:50:36] to be turning a blind eye
[1:50:38] to what went into
[1:50:39] the slush fund deal
[1:50:40] and the tax amnesty deal
[1:50:43] and then discover
[1:50:45] through a court proceeding
[1:50:47] in Florida
[1:50:48] all the stuff
[1:50:49] that we failed
[1:50:50] to look at
[1:50:51] it's hard to be
[1:50:53] taken seriously
[1:50:53] if we have failed
[1:50:55] to do our own duty
[1:50:56] and then
[1:50:57] the court proceedings
[1:50:59] reveal
[1:51:00] the mischief
[1:51:01] I will say that
[1:51:03] I've looked
[1:51:04] I have never
[1:51:06] ever heard
[1:51:09] of senior officials
[1:51:11] of the Department
[1:51:13] of Justice
[1:51:14] being called
[1:51:16] before a court
[1:51:17] with respect
[1:51:20] to a fraud
[1:51:20] upon the court
[1:51:21] look up
[1:51:22] fraud upon a court
[1:51:24] it's a pretty
[1:51:25] serious charge
[1:51:26] this one
[1:51:28] was brought
[1:51:28] raised
[1:51:30] I guess I should say
[1:51:30] by 36
[1:51:31] three dozen
[1:51:32] retired federal judges
[1:51:33] some very very
[1:51:34] respected ones
[1:51:35] some very very
[1:51:36] conservative ones
[1:51:37] and the judge
[1:51:40] in the proceeding
[1:51:41] in Florida
[1:51:41] out of which
[1:51:42] the slush fund settlement
[1:51:43] emerged
[1:51:44] reopened the case
[1:51:45] to have a look
[1:51:46] she asked for responses
[1:51:53] she suggested
[1:51:56] that the DOJ
[1:51:57] might have violated
[1:51:58] its own policies
[1:51:59] in the settlement
[1:51:59] she suggested
[1:52:01] that there was
[1:52:02] an IRS defense memo
[1:52:04] out there
[1:52:05] that would be
[1:52:06] relevant to the proceedings
[1:52:08] the violation
[1:52:12] of DOJ policies
[1:52:13] would obviously
[1:52:13] be a matter
[1:52:14] for DOJ
[1:52:14] to answer
[1:52:15] the IRS client memo
[1:52:18] would obviously
[1:52:19] be something
[1:52:20] for DOJ
[1:52:21] to answer
[1:52:22] she also questioned
[1:52:24] whether there was collusion
[1:52:25] it takes two
[1:52:27] to collude
[1:52:28] it would be a collusion
[1:52:30] between the Department
[1:52:31] of Justice lawyers
[1:52:32] and Trump's private lawyers
[1:52:34] so there's another reason
[1:52:37] for the Department
[1:52:38] of Justice
[1:52:38] to have responded
[1:52:40] what happened
[1:52:41] last Friday
[1:52:41] no response
[1:52:43] from the Department
[1:52:43] of Justice
[1:52:44] first ever accusation
[1:52:46] of senior level
[1:52:47] Department of Justice
[1:52:48] people
[1:52:49] of fraud upon the court
[1:52:51] with an invitation
[1:52:52] to rebut the allegations
[1:52:53] an invitation specific
[1:52:55] to Department of Justice
[1:52:57] conduct
[1:52:57] and they duck
[1:53:00] so that
[1:53:02] is going to continue
[1:53:04] the three dozen judges
[1:53:07] have their answer
[1:53:07] this Friday
[1:53:08] and then the court
[1:53:08] will go forward
[1:53:09] I will contend
[1:53:11] that we don't look
[1:53:12] like much
[1:53:12] if that information
[1:53:15] is being developed
[1:53:16] in a federal courtroom
[1:53:16] and we haven't been allowed
[1:53:18] to ask questions
[1:53:19] and indeed
[1:53:19] our oversight
[1:53:20] has been collapsed
[1:53:21] into a confirmation hearing
[1:53:23] I have never seen
[1:53:25] a Department of Justice
[1:53:26] as badly run
[1:53:27] as this one
[1:53:29] I have never seen
[1:53:30] fraud upon the court allegations
[1:53:32] I've never seen
[1:53:33] so many suggestions
[1:53:34] of contempt
[1:53:35] I've never seen
[1:53:36] so many no true bills
[1:53:37] I've never seen
[1:53:38] so many cases thrown out
[1:53:39] I've never seen
[1:53:40] so many accusations
[1:53:41] that Department arguments
[1:53:43] were false
[1:53:44] were pretextual
[1:53:45] were designed to fool
[1:53:46] rather than inform
[1:53:47] the court
[1:53:48] and we see that
[1:53:49] over and over again
[1:53:50] from judges appointed
[1:53:51] by every president
[1:53:53] it is now at the point
[1:53:55] where the Department of Justice
[1:53:56] and the U.S. government
[1:53:57] have lost their presumption
[1:54:00] of regularity
[1:54:01] in federal court proceedings
[1:54:02] all of this matters
[1:54:05] all of this is something
[1:54:07] to which this committee
[1:54:09] should be paying attention
[1:54:10] and with respect
[1:54:12] to what our chairman
[1:54:14] has said
[1:54:15] about the norms
[1:54:15] of the committee
[1:54:16] well one norm
[1:54:18] is that U.S. attorneys
[1:54:19] come through this committee
[1:54:20] after a process of consultation
[1:54:25] before they get
[1:54:27] to run U.S. attorney's office
[1:54:29] over and over again
[1:54:31] we see these slippery deals
[1:54:34] where acting U.S. attorneys
[1:54:37] are appointed
[1:54:38] and then the first assistant
[1:54:41] is fired
[1:54:42] and when the time runs out
[1:54:44] on the acting U.S. attorney
[1:54:46] they slip back
[1:54:48] into the first attorney position
[1:54:49] and leave a vacancy
[1:54:51] it's an obvious scam
[1:54:54] to get around
[1:54:56] this committee's norms
[1:54:58] and we have put up with this
[1:55:00] it didn't happen once
[1:55:01] it didn't happen twice
[1:55:02] it has happened over
[1:55:03] and over and over
[1:55:05] and over again
[1:55:05] and on top of that
[1:55:07] we've seen U.S. attorneys
[1:55:08] called out for misconduct
[1:55:11] over and over
[1:55:12] and over again
[1:55:13] none of this is normal
[1:55:15] none of this is normal
[1:55:18] and the fact that this committee
[1:55:20] won't look into it
[1:55:21] I think is a shame
[1:55:23] and I think if we try to be complicit
[1:55:26] in failing in our duty
[1:55:28] to look into this
[1:55:29] by combining
[1:55:30] the Blanche nomination hearing
[1:55:32] with the Department of Justice
[1:55:34] oversight hearing
[1:55:35] we will have made
[1:55:35] a very very grave mistake
[1:55:38] I know that the chairman
[1:55:39] is sympathetic
[1:55:41] to the oversight problems
[1:55:44] that we face here
[1:55:45] and the degree to which
[1:55:47] this department's behavior
[1:55:48] is exceptional
[1:55:48] and I look forward to
[1:55:52] having those hearings
[1:55:53] go forward in a way
[1:55:54] that reflects
[1:55:55] the chairman's
[1:55:56] consistent desires
[1:55:58] for real oversight
[1:55:59] and I hope that the
[1:56:00] proceedings reflect that
[1:56:03] together with the leaders
[1:56:05] of this bill
[1:56:06] Senator Coons
[1:56:07] and Senator Blackburn
[1:56:08] and I want to thank them
[1:56:09] from the very beginning
[1:56:11] this builds on
[1:56:12] some of the work
[1:56:13] that Senator Cruz
[1:56:14] and I did
[1:56:15] on the Take It Down Act
[1:56:16] which is now signed into law
[1:56:17] and the provision requiring
[1:56:19] the platforms
[1:56:20] to take down
[1:56:21] non-consensual images
[1:56:22] in 48 hours
[1:56:23] is now actually in effect
[1:56:26] as well as the increased penalties
[1:56:28] for the people
[1:56:29] that post the illegal images
[1:56:32] and I think this is
[1:56:34] a huge step forward
[1:56:35] and a model
[1:56:36] that we should be using
[1:56:37] in many contexts
[1:56:39] and while this law
[1:56:41] that we did before
[1:56:42] the No Fakes Act
[1:56:43] focused on the non-consensual images
[1:56:47] and puts the rules
[1:56:49] of the road
[1:56:49] to give people control
[1:56:51] over digital replicas
[1:56:53] of their voice
[1:56:54] and likeness
[1:56:54] this goes to something
[1:56:56] that we know
[1:56:57] has been a real
[1:56:58] real problem
[1:56:59] it's important
[1:57:00] we pass this bill
[1:57:01] because it is easier
[1:57:02] than ever
[1:57:03] to use AI tools
[1:57:04] to generate everything
[1:57:06] from images
[1:57:07] and videos
[1:57:08] songs
[1:57:10] recordings
[1:57:11] and even Senate hearings
[1:57:12] in fact
[1:57:13] Senator Blackburn
[1:57:15] and I held a hearing
[1:57:17] on privacy
[1:57:18] that was actually
[1:57:19] a great subcommittee hearing
[1:57:20] we walked out of there
[1:57:21] thinking this is so good
[1:57:22] maybe we can find
[1:57:23] a compromise on this
[1:57:24] and a day later
[1:57:25] I saw an image of myself
[1:57:27] and I thought
[1:57:28] oh wow
[1:57:28] this thing is getting
[1:57:30] so much attention
[1:57:31] it was me
[1:57:32] and she was sitting next to me
[1:57:33] and my staff was behind me
[1:57:35] and it was actually
[1:57:36] an AI image
[1:57:38] now that might have been
[1:57:38] considered parody
[1:57:39] I didn't think it was
[1:57:40] very funny
[1:57:41] with what they said
[1:57:42] they somehow put me
[1:57:43] in the middle
[1:57:44] of the Sydney Sweeney
[1:57:45] Jeans campaign issue
[1:57:47] but it was startling
[1:57:48] as I looked at my feed
[1:57:50] and finally the platforms
[1:57:52] either took it down
[1:57:53] or put digitally altered
[1:57:54] on it
[1:57:55] a number of people
[1:57:56] believed that
[1:57:56] they believed
[1:57:57] I used language
[1:57:59] that I would never use
[1:58:00] in this hearing room
[1:58:01] they believed
[1:58:02] I said things
[1:58:03] that I would never say
[1:58:04] and to me
[1:58:04] it was an example
[1:58:05] of how quickly
[1:58:06] these things can go viral
[1:58:08] so what happened
[1:58:10] here
[1:58:10] and by the way
[1:58:11] if it is parody
[1:58:12] I believe it should
[1:58:13] I have another piece
[1:58:14] of legislation
[1:58:15] that says that it should
[1:58:16] say digitally altered
[1:58:17] so technology
[1:58:19] led to incredible things
[1:58:21] last year
[1:58:21] we did an event
[1:58:22] the four of us
[1:58:23] with Randy Travis
[1:58:24] who lost his ability
[1:58:26] to sing
[1:58:26] after having a stroke
[1:58:28] and using AI replicas
[1:58:30] of his own voice
[1:58:31] he's been able
[1:58:32] to continue putting out music
[1:58:33] but that's because
[1:58:35] it's his voice
[1:58:35] it's his decision
[1:58:37] easy access
[1:58:38] to this technology
[1:58:39] has created real challenges
[1:58:41] that harm real people
[1:58:42] Sony Music
[1:58:43] has identified
[1:58:44] more than 135,000 songs
[1:58:47] with unauthorized deepfakes
[1:58:49] on streaming services
[1:58:50] so so much
[1:58:52] of what our country
[1:58:52] is based on
[1:58:53] and our innovation
[1:58:54] and our economy
[1:58:55] is based on ideas
[1:58:57] innovation
[1:58:58] people's intellectual
[1:58:59] products
[1:59:00] their own creations
[1:59:02] and if we mess around
[1:59:04] with this with AI
[1:59:04] and don't reward them
[1:59:06] for that
[1:59:06] we're going to mess around
[1:59:08] with our entire economy
[1:59:09] it isn't just artists
[1:59:11] consumers lost more than
[1:59:12] 3.5 billion dollars
[1:59:15] through imposter schemes
[1:59:16] and so that's why
[1:59:17] this bill is so important
[1:59:19] everyone should have
[1:59:20] the right to privacy
[1:59:21] and the right to control
[1:59:22] their own voice
[1:59:23] and their own likeness
[1:59:25] and I'll just end
[1:59:26] by thanking the consumer
[1:59:28] artists
[1:59:28] entertainment
[1:59:29] labor
[1:59:30] tech stakeholders
[1:59:31] that have come together
[1:59:33] to support this bill
[1:59:34] you must know
[1:59:35] something's going right
[1:59:36] Senator Blackburn
[1:59:37] when you can announce
[1:59:38] that you have
[1:59:39] the American Medical Association
[1:59:40] and SAG-ACTA
[1:59:41] supporting the same bill
[1:59:43] it's just a
[1:59:44] usually these interests
[1:59:45] don't align on something
[1:59:46] it's not like
[1:59:47] they're opposed
[1:59:47] but it just shows
[1:59:49] the broad coalition
[1:59:51] that supports
[1:59:52] doing something
[1:59:52] about this challenging
[1:59:54] and growing problem
[1:59:55] thank you
[1:59:56] before Senator Padilla
[1:59:58] and then Senator Cruz
[1:59:59] this is an extraordinarily
[2:00:02] ill-motivated candidate
[2:00:04] for the judiciary
[2:00:05] who has expressly said
[2:00:07] it's not his intention
[2:00:08] to follow the law
[2:00:09] but rather to impose
[2:00:10] his view of what he calls
[2:00:11] traditional western values
[2:00:14] he has derided textualism
[2:00:16] and indeed said
[2:00:17] a court that correctly
[2:00:19] decides cases
[2:00:20] on narrow grounds
[2:00:22] without upsetting
[2:00:24] long set
[2:00:25] but badly flawed precedents
[2:00:27] will not be much use
[2:00:28] that is unacceptable
[2:00:30] for the conservative movement
[2:00:32] of today
[2:00:34] in his own words
[2:00:36] he will use his seat
[2:00:38] on the bench
[2:00:38] to impose his view
[2:00:40] of traditional western values
[2:00:42] to press for the conservative movement
[2:00:44] of today
[2:00:46] and will avoid
[2:00:47] and indeed seems to mock
[2:00:49] the notion of correctly
[2:00:51] deciding cases
[2:00:52] on narrow grounds
[2:00:53] textualism and minimalism
[2:00:56] used to be conservative values
[2:00:57] this does not provide that
[2:00:59] the clerk will call the roll
[2:01:01] on flowers
[2:01:02] flag for my colleagues
[2:01:03] that this individual
[2:01:04] represents President Trump
[2:01:06] personally
[2:01:07] in his appeal
[2:01:08] of the 34 felony convictions
[2:01:10] for falsifying business records
[2:01:12] related to his payments
[2:01:14] to Stormy Daniels
[2:01:16] and also in the
[2:01:18] $464 million judgment
[2:01:20] against Trump
[2:01:21] and his family members
[2:01:22] and his business
[2:01:22] for inflated value
[2:01:24] of business assets
[2:01:26] the president still owes
[2:01:27] the firm $400,000
[2:01:29] evidently
[2:01:30] and notwithstanding
[2:01:32] the chairman's comments
[2:01:33] earlier about following norms
[2:01:34] no blue slip
[2:01:35] from either of the New York
[2:01:37] senators
[2:01:37] I urge a no vote
[2:01:39] the clerk will call the roll
[2:01:41] on Schwartz
[2:01:42] thank you Mr. Chairman
[2:01:43] I want to offer
[2:01:44] my strong support
[2:01:45] for the no fakes act today
[2:01:47] throughout my time
[2:01:48] in Congress
[2:01:48] I've proudly represented
[2:01:49] the creative capital
[2:01:50] of the world
[2:01:51] and I've always believed
[2:01:52] that our creative economy
[2:01:54] and hundreds of thousands
[2:01:55] of hardworking people
[2:01:56] behind it
[2:01:57] deserve strong protections
[2:01:58] for their talents
[2:01:59] voices and likeness
[2:02:01] which make up the foundation
[2:02:02] of their livelihoods
[2:02:03] but in the advent of AI
[2:02:04] those livelihoods
[2:02:05] as well as the identities
[2:02:06] of everyday Americans
[2:02:08] are under threat
[2:02:09] the rapid advancement
[2:02:10] of generative AI
[2:02:11] has brought incredible innovation
[2:02:13] but it's also unleashed
[2:02:14] a wave
[2:02:14] of unauthorized exploitation
[2:02:17] we see this
[2:02:18] in the voices
[2:02:19] and visual likenesses
[2:02:20] of individuals
[2:02:21] from celebrities
[2:02:22] to children
[2:02:23] being replicated
[2:02:24] and weaponized
[2:02:25] without their permission
[2:02:26] and sometimes
[2:02:27] without their knowledge
[2:02:29] that is why
[2:02:30] I've long supported
[2:02:31] the no fakes act
[2:02:31] this legislation
[2:02:33] backed by a wide coalition
[2:02:34] establishes a clear
[2:02:36] federal right
[2:02:36] protecting all individuals
[2:02:38] from unauthorized
[2:02:39] digital replicas
[2:02:41] the performers
[2:02:42] and voice actors
[2:02:43] who power a country's
[2:02:44] greatest cultural export
[2:02:45] deserve to know
[2:02:46] that their faces
[2:02:47] and voices
[2:02:48] won't be used
[2:02:48] to replace them
[2:02:49] in order to protect
[2:02:51] human creativity
[2:02:52] and prevent against
[2:02:53] worse exploitation
[2:02:55] I urge my colleagues
[2:02:56] to support this bill
[2:02:57] and I yield back
[2:02:58] Chairman
[2:02:59] I'm in this seat
[2:03:02] this morning
[2:03:03] because
[2:03:05] Illinois
[2:03:06] Senator Durbin
[2:03:08] was a close friend
[2:03:11] of Illinois
[2:03:12] Senator Obama
[2:03:14] and then
[2:03:15] U.S. President
[2:03:16] Obama
[2:03:17] and today
[2:03:19] in a star-studded
[2:03:21] celebration
[2:03:22] the Obama Presidential Library
[2:03:24] is going to open
[2:03:25] and
[2:03:27] Senator Durbin
[2:03:28] very very much
[2:03:29] wanted to be there
[2:03:30] I think he is
[2:03:31] exactly where
[2:03:32] he should be
[2:03:33] and that leaves me
[2:03:35] to
[2:03:36] fill in for him
[2:03:37] today
[2:03:38] I'd like to take
[2:03:40] my time this morning
[2:03:42] to suggest
[2:03:43] that
[2:03:45] combining
[2:03:46] our oversight hearing
[2:03:49] of the Department of Justice
[2:03:50] with the nominations hearing
[2:03:53] for
[2:03:55] Acting Attorney General Blanche
[2:03:58] would be a
[2:04:00] grave
[2:04:00] mistake
[2:04:01] for the committee
[2:04:03] I don't believe
[2:04:05] we did that
[2:04:05] with Attorney General Garland
[2:04:08] and I think
[2:04:10] the record
[2:04:11] of the Department of Justice
[2:04:14] under Todd Blanche
[2:04:16] lends itself
[2:04:17] to very
[2:04:19] vigorous
[2:04:20] oversight
[2:04:21] oversight
[2:04:23] which we have been denied
[2:04:25] because
[2:04:26] when we
[2:04:27] ask questions
[2:04:28] we get
[2:04:30] scripted litanies
[2:04:31] of insult
[2:04:32] and quarrel
[2:04:33] rather than
[2:04:34] actual answers
[2:04:35] to our questions
[2:04:36] when we
[2:04:38] ask for
[2:04:39] documents
[2:04:40] and records
[2:04:40] in writing
[2:04:41] we get nothing
[2:04:43] we are reduced
[2:04:45] to filing
[2:04:45] FOIA requests
[2:04:46] that
[2:04:47] are then not
[2:04:48] even complied with
[2:04:49] as FOIA
[2:04:50] requests
[2:04:51] so
[2:04:52] the
[2:04:53] oversight
[2:04:55] function
[2:04:56] of this committee
[2:04:57] is really
[2:04:58] I think
[2:04:59] being systematically
[2:04:59] disabled
[2:05:00] that's particularly
[2:05:02] significant
[2:05:03] when you have
[2:05:04] Attorney General
[2:05:04] Bondi
[2:05:05] saying that
[2:05:06] it was
[2:05:07] Todd Blanche
[2:05:08] who was
[2:05:10] responsible
[2:05:10] for the
[2:05:11] Epstein
[2:05:12] files
[2:05:13] disaster
[2:05:14] the releases
[2:05:16] of private information
[2:05:18] and images
[2:05:18] of victims
[2:05:19] the cover-up
[2:05:21] of documents
[2:05:24] that named
[2:05:25] Donald Trump
[2:05:26] and just
[2:05:27] the general
[2:05:28] incompetence
[2:05:29] of the whole
[2:05:30] wretched
[2:05:32] mess
[2:05:33] I don't think
[2:05:35] that it would be
[2:05:36] a good idea
[2:05:37] for this committee
[2:05:38] to be complicit
[2:05:40] in covering up
[2:05:42] the cover-up
[2:05:44] of the Epstein
[2:05:45] files
[2:05:46] move on
[2:05:48] to the slush fund
[2:05:49] which a great
[2:05:50] number of my
[2:05:52] Republican colleagues
[2:05:53] have expressed
[2:05:54] real reservations
[2:05:55] about
[2:05:55] with its
[2:05:56] attachment
[2:05:57] of a tax
[2:05:58] amnesty
[2:05:58] deal
[2:05:59] for
[2:06:00] Trump
[2:06:00] the Trump
[2:06:01] family
[2:06:01] and the
[2:06:02] Trump
[2:06:02] businesses
[2:06:04] there are
[2:06:06] very legitimate
[2:06:07] questions
[2:06:07] to be asked
[2:06:08] about that
[2:06:09] including
[2:06:10] has that
[2:06:11] cockamamie
[2:06:12] idea
[2:06:13] really been
[2:06:13] withdrawn
[2:06:14] or is it
[2:06:16] just being
[2:06:16] hidden briefly
[2:06:17] so it can
[2:06:19] resurface
[2:06:19] in some
[2:06:20] other
[2:06:20] fashion
[2:06:21] we should
[2:06:23] be looking
[2:06:24] into this
[2:06:24] as a committee
[2:06:25] it's important
[2:06:26] stuff
[2:06:27] and even
[2:06:29] if we
[2:06:29] shirk
[2:06:30] our duties
[2:06:31] at looking
[2:06:31] into all
[2:06:32] of this
[2:06:32] it appears
[2:06:33] that a
[2:06:34] Florida court
[2:06:35] is going
[2:06:36] to be looking
[2:06:36] into all
[2:06:37] of this
[2:06:37] and I think
[2:06:38] it's a bad
[2:06:39] look for the
[2:06:40] committee
[2:06:40] to be turning
[2:06:41] a blind eye
[2:06:42] to what went
[2:06:43] into the
[2:06:44] slush fund
[2:06:44] deal
[2:06:44] and the
[2:06:46] tax amnesty
[2:06:46] deal
[2:06:47] and then
[2:06:49] discover
[2:06:49] through a
[2:06:50] court proceeding
[2:06:51] in Florida
[2:06:52] all the stuff
[2:06:53] that we
[2:06:54] failed to
[2:06:55] look at
[2:06:55] it's hard
[2:06:56] to be taken
[2:06:57] seriously
[2:06:58] if we have
[2:06:59] failed to do
[2:06:59] our own
[2:07:00] duty
[2:07:00] and then
[2:07:01] the court
[2:07:02] proceedings
[2:07:03] reveal
[2:07:04] the mischief
[2:07:05] I will say
[2:07:07] that I've
[2:07:08] looked
[2:07:09] I have never
[2:07:10] ever heard
[2:07:13] of senior
[2:07:15] officials
[2:07:15] of the
[2:07:17] Department of
[2:07:17] Justice
[2:07:18] being called
[2:07:20] before a court
[2:07:21] with respect
[2:07:24] to a fraud
[2:07:24] upon the court
[2:07:25] look up
[2:07:27] fraud upon a
[2:07:28] court
[2:07:28] it's a pretty
[2:07:30] serious charge
[2:07:31] this one
[2:07:32] was brought
[2:07:33] raised
[2:07:34] I guess
[2:07:34] I should
[2:07:34] say
[2:07:35] by 36
[2:07:36] three dozen
[2:07:36] retired federal
[2:07:37] judges
[2:07:38] some very
[2:07:38] very respected
[2:07:39] ones
[2:07:39] some very
[2:07:40] very conservative
[2:07:41] ones
[2:07:41] and the judge
[2:07:44] in the proceeding
[2:07:45] in Florida
[2:07:45] out of which
[2:07:46] the slush fund
[2:07:47] settlement
[2:07:47] emerged
[2:07:48] reopened the case
[2:07:50] to have a look
[2:07:50] she asked
[2:07:57] for responses
[2:07:57] she suggested
[2:08:00] that the DOJ
[2:08:01] might have violated
[2:08:02] its own policies
[2:08:03] in the settlement
[2:08:04] she suggested
[2:08:05] that there was
[2:08:06] an IRS defense
[2:08:08] memo out there
[2:08:09] that would be
[2:08:10] relevant to the
[2:08:12] proceedings
[2:08:12] the violation
[2:08:16] of DOJ
[2:08:16] policies
[2:08:17] would obviously
[2:08:17] be a matter
[2:08:18] for DOJ
[2:08:19] to answer
[2:08:19] the IRS
[2:08:21] client memo
[2:08:22] would obviously
[2:08:23] be something
[2:08:24] for DOJ
[2:08:25] to answer
[2:08:26] she also
[2:08:28] questioned
[2:08:28] whether there
[2:08:29] was collusion
[2:08:29] it takes
[2:08:31] two to
[2:08:32] collude
[2:08:32] it would be
[2:08:33] a collusion
[2:08:34] between the
[2:08:35] Department of
[2:08:35] Justice lawyers
[2:08:36] and Trump's
[2:08:37] private lawyers
[2:08:38] so there's
[2:08:40] another reason
[2:08:41] for the Department
[2:08:42] of Justice
[2:08:42] to have responded
[2:08:44] what happened
[2:08:45] last Friday
[2:08:46] no response
[2:08:47] from the Department
[2:08:47] of Justice
[2:08:48] first ever
[2:08:49] accusation
[2:08:50] of senior level
[2:08:52] Department of Justice
[2:08:53] people
[2:08:53] of fraud
[2:08:54] upon the court
[2:08:55] with an invitation
[2:08:56] to rebut the
[2:08:57] allegations
[2:08:57] an invitation
[2:08:58] specific
[2:08:59] to Department
[2:09:00] of Justice
[2:09:01] conduct
[2:09:02] and they duck
[2:09:04] so that
[2:09:06] is going to
[2:09:08] continue
[2:09:08] the three dozen
[2:09:10] judges
[2:09:11] have their answer
[2:09:12] this Friday
[2:09:12] and then the court
[2:09:13] will go forward
[2:09:13] I will contend
[2:09:15] that we don't
[2:09:16] look like much
[2:09:16] if that information
[2:09:19] is being developed
[2:09:20] in a federal courtroom
[2:09:20] and we haven't been
[2:09:22] allowed to ask
[2:09:22] questions
[2:09:23] and indeed
[2:09:23] our oversight
[2:09:24] has been collapsed
[2:09:25] into a confirmation
[2:09:27] hearing
[2:09:28] I have never seen
[2:09:29] a Department of Justice
[2:09:30] as badly run
[2:09:31] as this one
[2:09:33] I've never seen
[2:09:35] fraud upon the court
[2:09:36] allegations
[2:09:36] I've never seen
[2:09:37] so many suggestions
[2:09:38] of contempt
[2:09:39] I've never seen
[2:09:40] so many no true bills
[2:09:41] I've never seen
[2:09:42] so many cases thrown out
[2:09:43] I've never seen
[2:09:44] so many accusations
[2:09:45] that Department
[2:09:47] arguments were false
[2:09:48] were pretextual
[2:09:49] were designed to fool
[2:09:50] rather than inform
[2:09:51] the court
[2:09:52] and we see that
[2:09:54] over and over again
[2:09:54] from judges appointed
[2:09:55] by every president
[2:09:57] it is now at the point
[2:09:59] where the Department
[2:10:00] of Justice
[2:10:00] and the U.S. government
[2:10:01] have lost their
[2:10:03] presumption of regularity
[2:10:05] in federal court proceedings
[2:10:07] all of this matters
[2:10:09] all of this is something
[2:10:11] to which this committee
[2:10:13] should be paying attention
[2:10:14] and with respect
[2:10:16] to what our chairman
[2:10:18] has said
[2:10:19] about the norms
[2:10:19] of the committee
[2:10:20] well one norm
[2:10:22] is that U.S. attorneys
[2:10:23] come through this committee
[2:10:24] after a process
[2:10:28] of consultation
[2:10:29] before they get
[2:10:31] to run U.S. attorney's office
[2:10:33] over and over again
[2:10:35] we see these slippery deals
[2:10:38] where acting U.S. attorneys
[2:10:42] are appointed
[2:10:42] and then the first assistant
[2:10:45] is fired
[2:10:46] and when the time runs out
[2:10:48] on the acting U.S. attorney
[2:10:51] they slip back
[2:10:52] into the first attorney position
[2:10:53] and leave a vacancy
[2:10:55] it's an obvious scam
[2:10:59] to get around
[2:11:00] this committee's norms
[2:11:02] and we have put up with this
[2:11:04] it didn't happen once
[2:11:05] it didn't happen twice
[2:11:06] it has happened over
[2:11:07] and over and over
[2:11:09] and over again
[2:11:10] and on top of that
[2:11:11] we've seen U.S. attorneys
[2:11:13] called out for misconduct
[2:11:15] over and over
[2:11:16] and over again
[2:11:17] none of this is normal
[2:11:19] none of this is normal
[2:11:22] and the fact that this committee
[2:11:24] won't look into it
[2:11:25] I think is a shame
[2:11:27] and I think if we try to be complicit
[2:11:30] in failing in our duty
[2:11:32] to look into this
[2:11:33] by combining
[2:11:34] the Blanche nomination hearing
[2:11:36] with the Department of Justice
[2:11:38] oversight hearing
[2:11:39] we will have made
[2:11:40] a very very grave mistake
[2:11:42] I know that the chairman
[2:11:44] is sympathetic
[2:11:45] to the oversight problems
[2:11:48] that we face here
[2:11:49] and the degree to which
[2:11:51] this department's behavior
[2:11:52] is exceptional
[2:11:53] and I look forward to
[2:11:56] having those hearings
[2:11:58] go forward in a way
[2:11:58] that reflects
[2:11:59] the chairman's
[2:12:00] consistent desires
[2:12:02] for real oversight
[2:12:03] and I hope that the
[2:12:04] proceedings reflect that
[2:12:07] together with the leaders
[2:12:09] of this bill
[2:12:10] Senator Coons
[2:12:11] and Senator Blackburn
[2:12:12] and I want to thank them
[2:12:13] from the very beginning
[2:12:15] this builds on
[2:12:16] some of the work
[2:12:17] that Senator Cruz
[2:12:18] and I did
[2:12:19] on the Take It Down Act
[2:12:20] which is now signed into law
[2:12:22] and the provision
[2:12:22] requiring the platforms
[2:12:24] to take down
[2:12:25] non-consensual images
[2:12:26] in 48 hours
[2:12:28] is now actually in effect
[2:12:30] as well as the increased
[2:12:32] penalties for the people
[2:12:33] that post the illegal images
[2:12:37] and I think this is
[2:12:39] a huge step forward
[2:12:40] and a model
[2:12:40] that we should be using
[2:12:42] in many contexts
[2:12:43] and while this law
[2:12:45] that we did before
[2:12:47] the No Fakes Act
[2:12:48] focused on the
[2:12:48] non-consensual images
[2:12:51] and puts the rules
[2:12:53] of the road
[2:12:54] to give people
[2:12:55] control over digital
[2:12:57] replicas of their voice
[2:12:58] and likeness
[2:12:59] this goes to something
[2:13:00] that we know
[2:13:01] has been a real
[2:13:02] real problem
[2:13:03] it's important
[2:13:04] we pass this bill
[2:13:05] because it is easier
[2:13:06] than ever
[2:13:07] to use AI tools
[2:13:09] to generate everything
[2:13:10] from images
[2:13:11] and videos
[2:13:13] songs
[2:13:14] recordings
[2:13:15] and even Senate hearings
[2:13:16] in fact
[2:13:17] Senator Blackburn
[2:13:19] and I held a hearing
[2:13:21] on privacy
[2:13:22] that was actually
[2:13:23] a great subcommittee hearing
[2:13:24] we walked out of there
[2:13:25] thinking this is so good
[2:13:26] maybe we can find
[2:13:27] a compromise on this
[2:13:29] and a day later
[2:13:30] I saw an image of myself
[2:13:31] and I thought
[2:13:32] oh wow
[2:13:33] this thing is getting
[2:13:34] so much attention
[2:13:35] it was me
[2:13:36] and she was sitting next to me
[2:13:37] and my staff was behind me
[2:13:39] and it was actually
[2:13:41] an AI image
[2:13:42] now that might have been
[2:13:43] considered parody
[2:13:43] I didn't think it was very funny
[2:13:45] with what they said
[2:13:46] they somehow put me
[2:13:47] in the middle of the
[2:13:48] Sydney Sweeney Jeans
[2:13:50] campaign issue
[2:13:51] but it was startling
[2:13:52] as I looked at my feed
[2:13:54] and finally the platforms
[2:13:56] either took it down
[2:13:57] or put digitally altered on it
[2:13:59] a number of people believed
[2:14:00] that they believed
[2:14:01] I used language
[2:14:03] that I would never use
[2:14:04] in this hearing room
[2:14:05] they believed I said things
[2:14:07] that I would never say
[2:14:08] and to me it was an example
[2:14:09] of how quickly
[2:14:11] these things can go viral
[2:14:12] so what happened here
[2:14:15] and by the way
[2:14:15] if it is parody
[2:14:16] I believe it should
[2:14:17] I have another piece
[2:14:19] of legislation
[2:14:19] that says that it should say
[2:14:21] digitally altered
[2:14:22] so technology
[2:14:23] led to incredible things
[2:14:25] last year
[2:14:26] we did an event
[2:14:26] the four of us
[2:14:27] with Randy Travis
[2:14:28] who lost his ability
[2:14:30] to sing
[2:14:30] after having a stroke
[2:14:33] and using AI replicas
[2:14:34] of his own voice
[2:14:35] he's been able to
[2:14:36] continue putting out music
[2:14:38] but that's because
[2:14:39] it's his voice
[2:14:39] it's his decision
[2:14:41] easy access to this technology
[2:14:43] has created real challenges
[2:14:45] that harm real people
[2:14:46] Sony Music
[2:14:47] has identified
[2:14:48] more than 135,000 songs
[2:14:51] with unauthorized deepfakes
[2:14:53] on streaming services
[2:14:54] so so much
[2:14:56] of what our country
[2:14:56] is based on
[2:14:57] and our innovation
[2:14:58] and our economy
[2:14:59] is based on ideas
[2:15:01] innovation
[2:15:02] people's intellectual
[2:15:03] products
[2:15:05] their own creations
[2:15:06] and if we mess around
[2:15:08] with this with AI
[2:15:09] and don't reward them
[2:15:10] for that
[2:15:11] we're going to mess around
[2:15:12] with our entire economy
[2:15:13] it isn't just artists
[2:15:15] consumers lost more than
[2:15:17] 3.5 billion dollars
[2:15:19] through imposter schemes
[2:15:20] and so that's why
[2:15:21] this bill is so important
[2:15:23] everyone should have
[2:15:24] the right to privacy
[2:15:25] and the right to control
[2:15:27] their own voice
[2:15:28] and their own likeness
[2:15:29] and I'll just end
[2:15:30] by thanking the consumer
[2:15:32] artists
[2:15:32] entertainment
[2:15:33] labor
[2:15:34] tech stakeholders
[2:15:35] that have come together
[2:15:37] to support this bill
[2:15:38] you must know
[2:15:39] something's going right
[2:15:40] Senator Blackburn
[2:15:41] when you can announce
[2:15:42] that you have
[2:15:43] the American Medical Association
[2:15:44] and SAG Actra
[2:15:46] supporting the same bill
[2:15:47] it's just a
[2:15:48] usually these interests
[2:15:49] don't align on something
[2:15:50] it's not like
[2:15:51] they're opposed
[2:15:52] but it just shows
[2:15:53] the broad coalition
[2:15:55] that supports
[2:15:56] doing something
[2:15:57] about this challenging
[2:15:58] and growing problem
[2:15:59] thank you
[2:16:00] before Senator Padilla
[2:16:02] and then Senator Cruz
[2:16:03] this is an extraordinarily
[2:16:06] ill-motivated candidate
[2:16:08] for the judiciary
[2:16:09] who has expressly said
[2:16:11] it's not his intention
[2:16:12] to follow the law
[2:16:13] but rather to impose
[2:16:14] his view of what he calls
[2:16:15] traditional western values
[2:16:18] he has derided textualism
[2:16:20] and indeed said
[2:16:21] a court that correctly
[2:16:23] decides cases
[2:16:24] on narrow grounds
[2:16:26] without upsetting
[2:16:28] long set
[2:16:29] but badly flawed precedents
[2:16:31] will not be much use
[2:16:33] that is unacceptable
[2:16:34] for the conservative movement
[2:16:36] of today
[2:16:38] in his own words
[2:16:40] he will use his seat
[2:16:42] on the bench
[2:16:43] to impose his view
[2:16:45] of traditional western values
[2:16:46] to press for the conservative movement
[2:16:49] of today
[2:16:50] and will avoid
[2:16:51] and indeed seems to mock
[2:16:54] the notion of correctly
[2:16:55] deciding cases
[2:16:56] on narrow grounds
[2:16:58] textualism and minimalism
[2:17:00] used to be conservative values
[2:17:01] this does not provide that
[2:17:03] the clerk will call the roll
[2:17:05] on flowers
[2:17:06] flag for my colleagues
[2:17:07] that this individual
[2:17:09] represents President Trump
[2:17:10] personally
[2:17:11] in his appeal
[2:17:12] of the 34 felony convictions
[2:17:15] for falsifying business records
[2:17:16] related to his payments
[2:17:18] to Stormy Daniels
[2:17:20] and also in the 464 million dollar judgment
[2:17:24] against Trump
[2:17:25] and his family members
[2:17:26] and his business
[2:17:27] for inflated value
[2:17:28] of business assets
[2:17:30] the president still owes
[2:17:32] the firm
[2:17:32] $400,000 evidently
[2:17:34] and notwithstanding
[2:17:36] the chairman's comments
[2:17:37] earlier about following norms
[2:17:39] no blue slip
[2:17:40] from either of the New York
[2:17:41] senators
[2:17:42] I urge a no vote
[2:17:43] the clerk will call the roll
[2:17:45] on Schwartz
[2:17:46] thank you Mr. Chairman
[2:17:47] I want to offer
[2:17:49] my strong support
[2:17:49] for the no fakes act today
[2:17:51] throughout my time in Congress
[2:17:52] I've proudly represented
[2:17:54] the creative capital
[2:17:55] of the world
[2:17:55] and I've always believed
[2:17:56] that our creative economy
[2:17:58] and hundreds of thousands
[2:17:59] of hardworking people
[2:18:00] behind it
[2:18:01] deserve strong protections
[2:18:02] for their talents
[2:18:04] voices and likeness
[2:18:05] which make up the foundation
[2:18:06] of their livelihoods
[2:18:07] but in the advent of AI
[2:18:08] those livelihoods
[2:18:10] as well as the identities
[2:18:11] of everyday Americans
[2:18:12] are under threat
[2:18:13] the rapid advancement
[2:18:14] of generative AI
[2:18:15] has brought incredible innovation
[2:18:17] but it's also unleashed
[2:18:18] a wave
[2:18:19] of unauthorized exploitation
[2:18:21] we see this
[2:18:22] in the voices
[2:18:23] and visual likenesses
[2:18:24] of individuals
[2:18:25] from celebrities
[2:18:26] to children
[2:18:27] being replicated
[2:18:29] and weaponized
[2:18:29] without their permission
[2:18:30] and sometimes
[2:18:31] without their knowledge
[2:18:33] that is why
[2:18:34] I've long supported
[2:18:35] the no fakes act
[2:18:36] this legislation
[2:18:37] backed by a wide coalition
[2:18:38] establishes
[2:18:39] a clear federal right
[2:18:40] protecting all individuals
[2:18:42] from unauthorized
[2:18:43] digital replicas
[2:18:45] the performers
[2:18:46] and voice actors
[2:18:47] who power a country's
[2:18:48] greatest cultural export
[2:18:49] deserve to know
[2:18:51] that their faces
[2:18:51] and voices
[2:18:52] won't be used
[2:18:53] to replace them
[2:18:54] in order to protect
[2:18:55] human creativity
[2:18:56] and prevent against
[2:18:57] worse exploitation
[2:18:59] I urge my colleagues
[2:19:00] to support this bill
[2:19:01] and I yield back
[2:19:02] Chairman
[2:19:04] I'm in this seat
[2:19:06] this morning
[2:19:07] because Illinois
[2:19:10] Senator Durbin
[2:19:12] was a close friend
[2:19:16] of Illinois Senator Obama
[2:19:18] Obama and then
[2:19:19] U.S. President Obama
[2:19:21] and today
[2:19:23] in a star-studded celebration
[2:19:27] the Obama Presidential Library
[2:19:28] is going to open
[2:19:29] and Senator Durbin
[2:19:32] very, very much
[2:19:33] wanted to be there
[2:19:34] I think he is
[2:19:35] exactly where
[2:19:36] he should be
[2:19:37] and that leaves me
[2:19:39] to fill in for him
[2:19:41] today
[2:19:42] I'd like to take
[2:19:44] my time this morning
[2:19:46] to suggest
[2:19:48] that combining
[2:19:51] our oversight hearing
[2:19:53] of the Department of Justice
[2:19:54] with the nominations hearing
[2:19:58] for Acting Attorney General Blanche
[2:20:02] would be a grave mistake
[2:20:06] for the committee
[2:20:07] I don't believe we did that
[2:20:10] with Attorney General Garland
[2:20:12] and I think
[2:20:14] the record
[2:20:16] of the Department of Justice
[2:20:18] under Todd Blanche
[2:20:20] lends itself
[2:20:22] to very vigorous
[2:20:24] oversight
[2:20:26] oversight
[2:20:27] which we have been denied
[2:20:29] because
[2:20:30] when we ask questions
[2:20:33] we get scripted litanies
[2:20:35] of insult
[2:20:36] and quarrel
[2:20:37] rather than actual
[2:20:39] answers to our
[2:20:40] questions
[2:20:40] when we
[2:20:42] ask for
[2:20:43] documents
[2:20:44] and records
[2:20:45] in writing
[2:20:45] we get nothing
[2:20:47] we are reduced
[2:20:49] to filing
[2:20:49] FOIA requests
[2:20:50] that are then
[2:20:52] not even
[2:20:52] complied with
[2:20:53] as FOIA
[2:20:54] requests
[2:20:55] so
[2:20:56] the
[2:20:58] oversight
[2:20:59] function
[2:21:00] of this committee
[2:21:01] is really
[2:21:02] I think
[2:21:03] being systematically
[2:21:04] disabled
[2:21:04] that's particularly
[2:21:06] significant
[2:21:07] when you have
[2:21:08] Attorney General
[2:21:08] Bondi
[2:21:09] saying that it was
[2:21:11] Todd Blanche
[2:21:13] who was responsible
[2:21:14] for the
[2:21:15] Epstein files
[2:21:17] disaster
[2:21:19] the releases
[2:21:20] of private information
[2:21:22] and images
[2:21:22] of victims
[2:21:24] the cover-up
[2:21:25] of documents
[2:21:28] that named
[2:21:29] Donald Trump
[2:21:30] and just the
[2:21:32] general incompetence
[2:21:33] of the whole
[2:21:35] wretched mess
[2:21:37] I don't think
[2:21:39] that it would be
[2:21:40] a good idea
[2:21:41] for this committee
[2:21:42] to be complicit
[2:21:44] in covering up
[2:21:46] the cover-up
[2:21:48] of the Epstein files
[2:21:50] move on to
[2:21:53] the slush fund
[2:21:53] which a great
[2:21:54] number of my
[2:21:56] Republican colleagues
[2:21:57] have expressed
[2:21:58] real reservations about
[2:21:59] with its attachment
[2:22:01] of a tax amnesty
[2:22:02] deal
[2:22:03] for Trump
[2:22:05] the Trump family
[2:22:06] and the Trump
[2:22:07] businesses
[2:22:08] there are very
[2:22:10] legitimate questions
[2:22:11] to be asked
[2:22:12] about that
[2:22:13] including
[2:22:14] has that cockamamie
[2:22:16] idea really
[2:22:17] been withdrawn
[2:22:18] or is it just
[2:22:20] being hidden briefly
[2:22:21] so it can resurface
[2:22:23] in some other
[2:22:24] fashion
[2:22:25] we should be looking
[2:22:28] into this as a committee
[2:22:29] it's important
[2:22:31] stuff
[2:22:31] and even if we
[2:22:34] shirk our duties
[2:22:35] at looking into
[2:22:36] all of this
[2:22:36] it appears
[2:22:38] that a Florida court
[2:22:39] is going to be
[2:22:40] looking into
[2:22:41] all of this
[2:22:42] and I think it's
[2:22:43] a bad look
[2:22:44] for the committee
[2:22:44] to be turning
[2:22:45] a blind eye
[2:22:46] to what went
[2:22:47] into the slush fund
[2:22:48] deal
[2:22:49] and the tax amnesty
[2:22:51] deal
[2:22:51] and then discover
[2:22:53] through a court
[2:22:55] proceeding in Florida
[2:22:56] all the stuff
[2:22:58] that we failed
[2:22:59] to look at
[2:23:00] it's hard
[2:23:01] to be taken
[2:23:01] seriously
[2:23:02] if we have failed
[2:23:03] to do our own duty
[2:23:05] and then
[2:23:06] the court proceedings
[2:23:07] reveal
[2:23:08] the mischief
[2:23:10] I will say
[2:23:11] that I've looked
[2:23:13] I have never
[2:23:14] ever heard
[2:23:18] of senior officials
[2:23:20] of the Department
[2:23:21] of Justice
[2:23:22] being called
[2:23:25] before a court
[2:23:25] with respect
[2:23:28] to a fraud
[2:23:29] upon the court
[2:23:29] look up
[2:23:31] fraud upon a court
[2:23:32] it's a pretty
[2:23:34] serious charge
[2:23:35] this one
[2:23:36] was brought
[2:23:37] raised
[2:23:38] I guess I should say
[2:23:39] by 36
[2:23:40] three dozen
[2:23:41] retired federal judges
[2:23:42] some very very
[2:23:43] respected ones
[2:23:43] some very very
[2:23:44] conservative ones
[2:23:45] and the judge
[2:23:48] in the proceeding
[2:23:49] in Florida
[2:23:49] out of which
[2:23:50] the slush fund
[2:23:51] settlement emerged
[2:23:52] reopened the case
[2:23:54] to have a look
[2:23:54] she asked for responses
[2:24:01] she suggested
[2:24:04] that the DOJ
[2:24:05] might have violated
[2:24:06] its own policies
[2:24:07] in the settlement
[2:24:08] she suggested
[2:24:10] that there was
[2:24:11] an IRS defense memo
[2:24:12] out there
[2:24:13] that would be
[2:24:15] relevant to the proceedings
[2:24:17] the violation
[2:24:20] of DOJ policies
[2:24:21] would obviously
[2:24:22] be a matter
[2:24:22] for DOJ
[2:24:23] to answer
[2:24:23] the IRS client memo
[2:24:26] would obviously
[2:24:27] be something
[2:24:28] for DOJ
[2:24:29] to answer
[2:24:30] she also questioned
[2:24:32] whether there was collusion
[2:24:33] it takes two
[2:24:35] to collude
[2:24:36] it would be a collusion
[2:24:38] between the Department
[2:24:39] of Justice lawyers
[2:24:40] and Trump's private lawyers
[2:24:42] so there's another reason
[2:24:45] for the Department
[2:24:46] of Justice
[2:24:46] to have responded
[2:24:48] what happened
[2:24:49] last Friday
[2:24:50] no response
[2:24:51] from the Department
[2:24:52] of Justice
[2:24:52] first ever accusation
[2:24:54] of senior level
[2:24:56] Department of Justice
[2:24:57] people
[2:24:57] of fraud upon the court
[2:24:59] with an invitation
[2:25:00] to rebut the allegations
[2:25:01] an invitation specific
[2:25:03] to Department of Justice
[2:25:05] conduct
[2:25:06] and they duck
[2:25:09] so that is going to continue
[2:25:13] the three dozen judges
[2:25:15] have their answer
[2:25:16] this Friday
[2:25:16] and then the court
[2:25:17] will go forward
[2:25:18] I will contend
[2:25:19] that we don't look
[2:25:20] like much
[2:25:21] if that information
[2:25:23] is being developed
[2:25:24] in a federal courtroom
[2:25:25] and we haven't been
[2:25:26] allowed to ask questions
[2:25:27] and indeed
[2:25:28] our oversight
[2:25:29] has been collapsed
[2:25:29] into a confirmation hearing
[2:25:32] I have never seen
[2:25:33] a Department of Justice
[2:25:34] as badly run
[2:25:35] as this one
[2:25:37] I've never seen
[2:25:39] fraud upon the court
[2:25:40] allegations
[2:25:41] I've never seen
[2:25:41] so many suggestions
[2:25:42] of contempt
[2:25:43] I've never seen
[2:25:44] so many no true bills
[2:25:45] I've never seen
[2:25:46] so many cases thrown out
[2:25:48] I've never seen
[2:25:49] so many accusations
[2:25:50] that Department arguments
[2:25:52] were false
[2:25:52] were pretextual
[2:25:53] were designed to fool
[2:25:55] rather than inform
[2:25:55] the court
[2:25:56] and we see that
[2:25:58] over and over again
[2:25:59] from judges appointed
[2:25:59] by every president
[2:26:02] it is now at the point
[2:26:03] where the Department of Justice
[2:26:05] and the U.S. government
[2:26:06] have lost their presumption
[2:26:08] of regularity
[2:26:09] in federal court proceedings
[2:26:11] all of this matters
[2:26:13] all of this is something
[2:26:15] to which this committee
[2:26:17] should be paying attention
[2:26:18] and with respect
[2:26:20] to what our chairman
[2:26:22] has said
[2:26:23] about the norms
[2:26:24] of the committee
[2:26:24] well one norm
[2:26:27] is that U.S. attorneys
[2:26:28] come through this committee
[2:26:29] after a process
[2:26:33] of consultation
[2:26:33] before they get
[2:26:35] to run U.S. attorney's office
[2:26:37] over and over again
[2:26:39] we see these slippery deals
[2:26:42] where acting U.S. attorneys
[2:26:46] are appointed
[2:26:46] and then
[2:26:48] the first assistant
[2:26:49] is fired
[2:26:50] and when the time
[2:26:52] runs out
[2:26:52] on the acting
[2:26:53] U.S. attorney
[2:26:55] they slip back
[2:26:56] into the first attorney position
[2:26:58] and leave a vacancy
[2:26:59] it's an obvious
[2:27:01] scam
[2:27:03] to get around
[2:27:04] this committee's norms
[2:27:06] and we have put up
[2:27:08] with this
[2:27:08] it didn't happen once
[2:27:10] it didn't happen twice
[2:27:11] it has happened over
[2:27:12] and over
[2:27:12] and over
[2:27:13] and over again
[2:27:14] and on top of that
[2:27:15] we've seen U.S. attorneys
[2:27:17] called out for misconduct
[2:27:19] over and over
[2:27:21] and over again
[2:27:22] none of this is normal
[2:27:23] none of this is normal
[2:27:26] and the fact that
[2:27:28] this committee
[2:27:28] won't look into it
[2:27:30] I think is a shame
[2:27:32] and I think if we try
[2:27:33] to be complicit
[2:27:34] in failing
[2:27:35] in our duty
[2:27:36] to look into this
[2:27:37] by combining
[2:27:39] the Blanche nomination hearing
[2:27:41] with the Department of Justice
[2:27:42] oversight hearing
[2:27:43] we will have made
[2:27:44] a very very grave mistake
[2:27:46] I know that the chairman
[2:27:48] is sympathetic
[2:27:49] to the oversight problems
[2:27:52] that we face here
[2:27:53] and the degree to which
[2:27:55] this department's behavior
[2:27:56] is exceptional
[2:27:57] and I look forward to
[2:28:00] having those hearings
[2:28:02] go forward in a way
[2:28:02] that reflects
[2:28:03] the chairman's
[2:28:05] consistent desires
[2:28:06] for real oversight
[2:28:07] and I hope that the
[2:28:08] proceedings reflect that
[2:28:11] together with the leaders
[2:28:13] of this bill
[2:28:14] Senator Coons
[2:28:15] and Senator Blackburn
[2:28:16] and I want to thank them
[2:28:17] from the very beginning
[2:28:19] this builds on
[2:28:20] some of the work
[2:28:21] that Senator Cruz
[2:28:23] and I did
[2:28:23] on the Take It Down Act
[2:28:24] which is now signed
[2:28:25] into law
[2:28:26] and the provision
[2:28:27] requiring the platforms
[2:28:28] to take down
[2:28:29] non-consensual images
[2:28:31] in 48 hours
[2:28:32] is now actually
[2:28:33] in effect
[2:28:34] as well as
[2:28:35] the increased penalties
[2:28:36] for the people
[2:28:37] that post
[2:28:38] the illegal images
[2:28:41] and I think
[2:28:42] this is a huge step forward
[2:28:44] and a model
[2:28:45] that we should be using
[2:28:46] in many contexts
[2:28:48] and while this law
[2:28:50] that we did before
[2:28:51] the No Fakes Act
[2:28:52] focused on the
[2:28:53] non-consensual images
[2:28:55] and puts the rules
[2:28:57] of the road
[2:28:58] to give people control
[2:29:00] over digital replicas
[2:29:01] of their voice
[2:29:02] and likeness
[2:29:03] this goes to something
[2:29:04] that we know
[2:29:05] has been a real, real problem
[2:29:07] it's important
[2:29:09] we pass this bill
[2:29:09] because it is easier
[2:29:11] than ever
[2:29:11] to use AI tools
[2:29:13] to generate everything
[2:29:14] from images
[2:29:15] and videos
[2:29:17] songs
[2:29:18] recordings
[2:29:19] and even Senate hearings
[2:29:21] in fact
[2:29:22] Senator Blackburn
[2:29:24] and I held
[2:29:24] a hearing
[2:29:25] on privacy
[2:29:26] that was actually
[2:29:27] a great subcommittee hearing
[2:29:28] we walked out of there
[2:29:29] thinking this is so good
[2:29:30] maybe we can find
[2:29:32] a compromise on this
[2:29:33] and a day later
[2:29:34] I saw an image
[2:29:35] of myself
[2:29:35] and I thought
[2:29:36] oh wow
[2:29:37] this thing is getting
[2:29:38] so much attention
[2:29:39] it was me
[2:29:40] and she was sitting
[2:29:41] next to me
[2:29:42] and my staff
[2:29:43] was behind me
[2:29:43] and it was actually
[2:29:45] an AI image
[2:29:46] now that might have
[2:29:47] been considered parody
[2:29:48] I didn't think
[2:29:48] it was very funny
[2:29:49] with what they said
[2:29:50] they somehow put me
[2:29:51] in the middle
[2:29:52] of the Sydney Sweeney
[2:29:53] Jeans campaign issue
[2:29:55] but it was startling
[2:29:57] as I looked at my feed
[2:29:58] and finally the
[2:29:59] platforms either
[2:30:01] took it down
[2:30:01] or put digitally
[2:30:02] altered on it
[2:30:03] a number of people
[2:30:04] believed that
[2:30:05] they believed
[2:30:05] I'd used language
[2:30:07] that I would never use
[2:30:08] in this hearing room
[2:30:09] they believed
[2:30:10] I said things
[2:30:11] that I would never say
[2:30:12] and to me
[2:30:13] it was an example
[2:30:14] of how quickly
[2:30:15] these things
[2:30:15] can go viral
[2:30:16] so what happened here
[2:30:19] and by the way
[2:30:19] if it is parody
[2:30:21] I believe it should
[2:30:21] I have another piece
[2:30:23] of legislation
[2:30:23] that says that
[2:30:24] it should say
[2:30:25] digitally altered
[2:30:26] so technology
[2:30:28] led to incredible things
[2:30:29] last year
[2:30:30] we did an event
[2:30:31] the four of us
[2:30:31] with Randy Travis
[2:30:32] who lost his ability
[2:30:34] to sing
[2:30:35] after having a stroke
[2:30:37] and using AI replicas
[2:30:39] of his own voice
[2:30:40] he's been able
[2:30:40] to continue
[2:30:41] putting out music
[2:30:42] but that's because
[2:30:43] it's his voice
[2:30:44] it's his decision
[2:30:45] easy access
[2:30:46] to this technology
[2:30:48] has created
[2:30:48] real challenges
[2:30:49] that harm real people
[2:30:51] Sony Music
[2:30:52] has identified
[2:30:52] more than
[2:30:53] 135,000 songs
[2:30:55] with unauthorized
[2:30:56] deepfakes
[2:30:57] on streaming services
[2:30:59] so so much
[2:31:00] of what our country
[2:31:01] is based on
[2:31:01] and our innovation
[2:31:02] and our economy
[2:31:04] is based on
[2:31:05] ideas
[2:31:05] innovation
[2:31:06] people's intellectual
[2:31:07] products
[2:31:09] their own creations
[2:31:10] and if we mess around
[2:31:12] with this with AI
[2:31:13] and don't reward them
[2:31:14] for that
[2:31:15] we're going to mess around
[2:31:16] with our entire economy
[2:31:17] it isn't just artists
[2:31:19] consumers lost
[2:31:20] more than
[2:31:21] 3.5 billion dollars
[2:31:23] through imposter schemes
[2:31:24] and so that's why
[2:31:26] this bill is so important
[2:31:27] everyone should have
[2:31:28] the right to privacy
[2:31:29] and the right
[2:31:30] to control their own voice
[2:31:32] and their own likeness
[2:31:34] and I'll just end
[2:31:35] by thanking
[2:31:35] the consumer
[2:31:36] artists
[2:31:36] entertainment
[2:31:37] labor
[2:31:38] tech stakeholders
[2:31:39] that have come together
[2:31:41] to support this bill
[2:31:42] you must know
[2:31:43] something's going right
[2:31:44] Senator Blackburn
[2:31:45] when you can announce
[2:31:46] that you have
[2:31:47] the American Medical Association
[2:31:49] and SAG Actra
[2:31:50] supporting the same bill
[2:31:51] it's just a
[2:31:52] usually these interests
[2:31:53] don't align on something
[2:31:54] it's not like
[2:31:55] they're opposed
[2:31:56] but it just shows
[2:31:57] the broad
[2:31:58] coalition
[2:31:59] that supports
[2:32:00] doing something
[2:32:01] about this
[2:32:01] challenging
[2:32:02] and growing problem
[2:32:03] thank you
[2:32:04] before Senator Padilla
[2:32:06] and then Senator Cruz
[2:32:07] this is an extraordinarily
[2:32:10] ill-motivated
[2:32:11] candidate
[2:32:12] for the judiciary
[2:32:13] who has expressly said
[2:32:15] it's not his intention
[2:32:16] to follow the law
[2:32:17] but rather to impose
[2:32:18] his view
[2:32:19] of what he calls
[2:32:20] traditional western values
[2:32:22] he has derided
[2:32:24] textualism
[2:32:25] and indeed said
[2:32:26] a court that
[2:32:27] correctly decides
[2:32:28] cases on narrow grounds
[2:32:30] without upsetting
[2:32:32] without upsetting
[2:32:32] long set
[2:32:33] but badly flawed
[2:32:35] precedents
[2:32:35] will not be much use
[2:32:37] that is unacceptable
[2:32:38] for the conservative
[2:32:40] movement of today
[2:32:42] in his own words
[2:32:44] he will use his seat
[2:32:46] on the bench
[2:32:47] to impose
[2:32:48] his view of traditional
[2:32:49] western values
[2:32:50] to press for the
[2:32:52] conservative movement
[2:32:53] of today
[2:32:54] and will avoid
[2:32:56] and indeed
[2:32:56] seems to mock
[2:32:58] the notion
[2:32:58] of correctly
[2:32:59] deciding cases
[2:33:01] on narrow grounds
[2:33:02] textualism
[2:33:03] and minimalism
[2:33:04] used to be
[2:33:04] conservative values
[2:33:05] this does not
[2:33:07] provide that
[2:33:08] the clerk will call
[2:33:09] the roll on flowers
[2:33:10] flag for my colleagues
[2:33:12] that this individual
[2:33:13] represents
[2:33:14] President Trump
[2:33:15] personally
[2:33:15] in his appeal
[2:33:16] of the 34
[2:33:17] felony convictions
[2:33:19] for falsifying
[2:33:20] business records
[2:33:21] related to his payments
[2:33:22] to Stormy Daniels
[2:33:25] and also
[2:33:26] in the 464 million
[2:33:27] dollar judgment
[2:33:28] against Trump
[2:33:29] and his family members
[2:33:30] and his business
[2:33:31] for inflated
[2:33:32] value of business assets
[2:33:34] the president still owes
[2:33:36] the firm
[2:33:36] $400,000 evidently
[2:33:38] and notwithstanding
[2:33:40] the chairman's comments
[2:33:41] earlier about following norms
[2:33:43] no blue slip
[2:33:44] from either of the
[2:33:45] New York senators
[2:33:46] I urge a no vote
[2:33:47] the clerk will call
[2:33:49] the roll on Schwartz
[2:33:50] Thank you Mr. Chairman
[2:33:52] I want to offer my strong support
[2:33:54] for the No Fakes Act today
[2:33:55] throughout my time
[2:33:56] in Congress
[2:33:56] I've proudly represented
[2:33:58] the creative capital
[2:33:59] of the world
[2:33:59] and I've always believed
[2:34:01] that our creative economy
[2:34:02] and hundreds of thousands
[2:34:04] of hardworking people
[2:34:04] behind it
[2:34:05] deserve strong protections
[2:34:06] for their talents
[2:34:08] voices and likeness
[2:34:09] which make up the foundation
[2:34:10] of their livelihoods
[2:34:11] but in the advent of AI
[2:34:13] those livelihoods
[2:34:14] as well as the identities
[2:34:15] of everyday Americans
[2:34:16] are under threat
[2:34:17] the rapid advancement
[2:34:18] of generative AI
[2:34:19] has brought incredible innovation
[2:34:21] but it's also unleashed
[2:34:22] a wave of unauthorized exploitation
[2:34:25] we see this in the voices
[2:34:27] and visual likenesses
[2:34:28] of individuals
[2:34:29] from celebrities
[2:34:30] to children
[2:34:31] being replicated
[2:34:33] and weaponized
[2:34:33] without their permission
[2:34:34] and sometimes
[2:34:35] without their knowledge
[2:34:37] that is why
[2:34:38] I've long supported
[2:34:39] the No Fakes Act
[2:34:40] this legislation
[2:34:41] backed by a wide coalition
[2:34:43] establishes a clear
[2:34:44] federal right
[2:34:45] protecting all individuals
[2:34:46] from unauthorized
[2:34:47] digital replicas
[2:34:49] the performers
[2:34:50] and voice actors
[2:34:51] who power a country's
[2:34:52] greatest cultural export
[2:34:54] deserve to know
[2:34:55] that their faces
[2:34:55] and voices won't be used
[2:34:57] to replace them
[2:34:58] in order to protect
[2:34:59] human creativity
[2:35:00] and prevent against
[2:35:01] worse exploitation
[2:35:03] I urge my colleagues
[2:35:04] to support this bill
[2:35:06] and I yield back
[2:35:06] Chairman
[2:35:08] I'm in this seat
[2:35:10] this morning
[2:35:11] because
[2:35:13] Illinois
[2:35:14] Senator Durbin
[2:35:17] was a
[2:35:19] close friend
[2:35:20] of Illinois
[2:35:21] Senator Obama
[2:35:22] and then
[2:35:23] U.S. President
[2:35:24] Obama
[2:35:25] and today
[2:35:27] in a
[2:35:28] star-studded
[2:35:29] celebration
[2:35:31] the Obama
[2:35:31] Presidential Library
[2:35:32] is going to open
[2:35:34] and
[2:35:35] Senator Durbin
[2:35:36] very very much
[2:35:37] wanted to be there
[2:35:38] I think he is
[2:35:40] exactly where
[2:35:40] he should be
[2:35:41] and that leaves me
[2:35:44] to fill in
[2:35:45] for him
[2:35:45] today
[2:35:46] I'd like to take
[2:35:48] my time this morning
[2:35:50] to suggest
[2:35:52] that
[2:35:53] combining
[2:35:55] our oversight
[2:35:57] hearing of the
[2:35:58] Department of Justice
[2:35:59] with the nominations
[2:36:01] hearing
[2:36:02] for
[2:36:04] Acting Attorney
[2:36:05] General Blanche
[2:36:06] would be a
[2:36:08] grave
[2:36:09] mistake
[2:36:10] for the committee
[2:36:11] I don't believe
[2:36:13] we did that
[2:36:14] with Attorney
[2:36:15] General Garland
[2:36:16] and I think
[2:36:19] the record
[2:36:20] of the Department
[2:36:21] of Justice
[2:36:22] under Todd Blanche
[2:36:24] lends itself
[2:36:26] to very
[2:36:27] vigorous
[2:36:28] oversight
[2:36:30] oversight
[2:36:31] which we have
[2:36:32] been denied
[2:36:33] because
[2:36:34] when we
[2:36:36] ask questions
[2:36:37] we get
[2:36:38] scripted
[2:36:39] litanies
[2:36:39] of insult
[2:36:41] and quarrel
[2:36:41] rather than
[2:36:42] actual answers
[2:36:43] to our
[2:36:44] questions
[2:36:44] when we
[2:36:46] ask for
[2:36:47] documents
[2:36:48] and records
[2:36:49] in writing
[2:36:49] we get
[2:36:51] nothing
[2:36:51] we are
[2:36:52] reduced
[2:36:53] to filing
[2:36:53] FOIA
[2:36:54] requests
[2:36:55] that
[2:36:55] are then
[2:36:56] not
[2:36:56] even
[2:36:57] complied
[2:36:57] with
[2:36:57] as
[2:36:58] FOIA
[2:36:58] requests
[2:36:59] so
[2:37:00] the
[2:37:02] oversight
[2:37:03] function
[2:37:04] of this
[2:37:05] committee
[2:37:05] is really
[2:37:06] I think
[2:37:07] being
[2:37:07] systematically
[2:37:08] disabled
[2:37:08] that's
[2:37:10] particularly
[2:37:10] significant
[2:37:11] when you
[2:37:12] have
[2:37:12] Attorney
[2:37:12] General
[2:37:12] Bondi
[2:37:13] saying
[2:37:14] that it
[2:37:15] was
[2:37:15] Todd Blanche
[2:37:17] who was
[2:37:18] responsible
[2:37:19] for the
[2:37:20] Epstein
[2:37:21] files
[2:37:22] disaster
[2:37:23] the releases
[2:37:24] of private
[2:37:25] information
[2:37:26] and images
[2:37:27] of victims
[2:37:28] the cover-up
[2:37:30] of documents
[2:37:32] that named
[2:37:33] Donald Trump
[2:37:34] and just
[2:37:36] the general
[2:37:36] incompetence
[2:37:37] of the whole
[2:37:39] wretched
[2:37:40] mess
[2:37:41] I don't think
[2:37:43] that it would be
[2:37:44] a good idea
[2:37:45] for this committee
[2:37:46] to be complicit
[2:37:48] in covering up
[2:37:50] the cover-up
[2:37:52] of the Epstein
[2:37:54] files
[2:37:55] move on
[2:37:57] to the slush fund
[2:37:58] which a great
[2:37:58] number of my
[2:38:00] Republican colleagues
[2:38:01] have expressed
[2:38:02] real reservations
[2:38:03] about
[2:38:03] with its
[2:38:05] attachment
[2:38:05] of a tax
[2:38:06] amnesty deal
[2:38:07] for
[2:38:08] Trump
[2:38:09] the Trump
[2:38:09] family
[2:38:10] and the
[2:38:11] Trump
[2:38:11] businesses
[2:38:12] there are
[2:38:14] very legitimate
[2:38:15] questions to be
[2:38:16] asked about that
[2:38:17] including
[2:38:18] has that
[2:38:20] cockamamie idea
[2:38:21] really been
[2:38:22] withdrawn
[2:38:22] or is it
[2:38:24] just being
[2:38:25] hidden briefly
[2:38:26] so it can resurface
[2:38:28] in some other
[2:38:28] fashion
[2:38:29] we should be
[2:38:32] looking into this
[2:38:33] as a committee
[2:38:33] it's important
[2:38:35] stuff
[2:38:35] and even if we
[2:38:38] shirk our duties
[2:38:39] at looking into
[2:38:40] all of this
[2:38:40] it appears
[2:38:42] that a Florida
[2:38:43] court
[2:38:44] is going to be
[2:38:44] looking into
[2:38:45] all of this
[2:38:46] and I think
[2:38:47] it's a bad look
[2:38:48] for the committee
[2:38:48] to be turning
[2:38:50] a blind eye
[2:38:50] to what went
[2:38:51] into the slush
[2:38:52] fund deal
[2:38:53] and the tax
[2:38:54] amnesty deal
[2:38:55] and then discover
[2:38:57] through a court
[2:38:59] proceeding
[2:38:59] in Florida
[2:39:00] all the stuff
[2:39:02] that we
[2:39:02] failed to look
[2:39:04] at
[2:39:04] it's hard
[2:39:05] to be taken
[2:39:05] seriously
[2:39:06] if we have
[2:39:07] failed to do
[2:39:08] our own duty
[2:39:09] and then
[2:39:10] the court
[2:39:11] proceedings
[2:39:11] reveal
[2:39:13] the mischief
[2:39:14] I will say
[2:39:15] that
[2:39:16] I've looked
[2:39:17] I have never
[2:39:19] ever
[2:39:20] heard
[2:39:22] of senior
[2:39:23] officials
[2:39:24] of the
[2:39:25] Department of
[2:39:26] Justice
[2:39:26] being called
[2:39:29] before a court
[2:39:30] with respect
[2:39:32] to a fraud
[2:39:33] upon the court
[2:39:34] look up
[2:39:35] fraud
[2:39:36] upon a court
[2:39:36] it's a pretty
[2:39:38] serious charge
[2:39:39] this one
[2:39:40] was brought
[2:39:41] raised
[2:39:42] I guess I should
[2:39:43] say
[2:39:43] by 36
[2:39:44] three dozen
[2:39:45] retired federal
[2:39:46] judges
[2:39:46] some very very
[2:39:47] respected ones
[2:39:48] some very very
[2:39:49] conservative ones
[2:39:50] and the judge
[2:39:52] in the proceeding
[2:39:53] in Florida
[2:39:54] out of which
[2:39:54] the slush fund
[2:39:55] settlement
[2:39:56] emerged
[2:39:57] reopened the case
[2:39:58] to have a look
[2:39:59] she asked
[2:40:05] for responses
[2:40:06] she suggested
[2:40:08] that the DOJ
[2:40:09] might have violated
[2:40:10] its own policies
[2:40:11] in the settlement
[2:40:12] she suggested
[2:40:14] that there was
[2:40:15] an IRS
[2:40:15] defense memo
[2:40:16] out there
[2:40:17] that would be
[2:40:19] relevant to the
[2:40:20] proceedings
[2:40:21] the violation
[2:40:24] of DOJ policies
[2:40:25] would obviously
[2:40:26] be a matter
[2:40:26] for DOJ
[2:40:27] to answer
[2:40:27] the IRS
[2:40:29] client memo
[2:40:30] would obviously
[2:40:31] be something
[2:40:32] for DOJ
[2:40:33] to answer
[2:40:34] she also questioned
[2:40:36] whether there was
[2:40:37] collusion
[2:40:38] it takes two
[2:40:40] to collude
[2:40:40] it would be a
[2:40:42] collusion
[2:40:42] between the
[2:40:43] Department of Justice
[2:40:44] lawyers
[2:40:44] and Trump's
[2:40:46] private lawyers
[2:40:47] so there's
[2:40:48] another reason
[2:40:49] for the Department
[2:40:50] of Justice
[2:40:51] to have responded
[2:40:52] what happened
[2:40:53] last Friday
[2:40:54] no response
[2:40:55] from the Department
[2:40:56] of Justice
[2:40:56] first ever accusation
[2:40:59] of senior level
[2:41:00] Department of Justice
[2:41:01] people
[2:41:01] of fraud upon
[2:41:03] the court
[2:41:03] with an invitation
[2:41:04] to rebut the allegations
[2:41:05] an invitation
[2:41:07] specific
[2:41:08] to Department
[2:41:09] of Justice
[2:41:09] conduct
[2:41:10] and they duck
[2:41:13] so that
[2:41:15] is going to
[2:41:16] continue
[2:41:17] the three dozen judges
[2:41:19] have their answer
[2:41:20] this Friday
[2:41:20] and then the court
[2:41:21] will go forward
[2:41:22] I will contend
[2:41:23] that we don't
[2:41:24] look like much
[2:41:25] if that information
[2:41:27] is being developed
[2:41:28] in a federal courtroom
[2:41:29] and we haven't been
[2:41:30] allowed to ask questions
[2:41:31] and indeed
[2:41:32] our oversight
[2:41:33] has been collapsed
[2:41:34] into a confirmation hearing
[2:41:36] I have never seen
[2:41:38] a Department of Justice
[2:41:38] as badly run
[2:41:40] as this one
[2:41:41] I've never seen
[2:41:43] fraud upon the court
[2:41:44] allegations
[2:41:45] I've never seen
[2:41:46] so many suggestions
[2:41:46] of contempt
[2:41:47] I've never seen
[2:41:48] so many no true bills
[2:41:49] I've never seen
[2:41:50] so many cases
[2:41:51] thrown out
[2:41:52] I've never seen
[2:41:53] so many accusations
[2:41:54] that Department
[2:41:55] arguments were false
[2:41:56] were pretextual
[2:41:57] were designed to fool
[2:41:59] rather than inform
[2:42:00] the court
[2:42:01] and we see that
[2:42:02] over and over again
[2:42:03] from judges appointed
[2:42:04] by every president
[2:42:06] it is now at the point
[2:42:08] where the Department
[2:42:08] of Justice
[2:42:09] and the U.S. government
[2:42:10] have lost
[2:42:11] their presumption
[2:42:12] of regularity
[2:42:13] in federal court proceedings
[2:42:15] all of this matters
[2:42:18] all of this is something
[2:42:20] to which this committee
[2:42:21] should be paying attention
[2:42:23] and with respect
[2:42:24] to what our chairman
[2:42:27] has said
[2:42:27] about the norms
[2:42:28] of the committee
[2:42:28] well one norm
[2:42:31] is that U.S. attorneys
[2:42:32] come through this committee
[2:42:33] after a process
[2:42:37] of consultation
[2:42:38] before they get
[2:42:40] to run U.S. attorney's office
[2:42:42] over and over again
[2:42:43] we see these slippery deals
[2:42:47] where acting U.S. attorneys
[2:42:50] are appointed
[2:42:51] and then
[2:42:52] the first assistant
[2:42:54] is fired
[2:42:54] and when the time
[2:42:56] runs out
[2:42:56] on the acting
[2:42:57] U.S. attorney
[2:42:59] they slip back
[2:43:00] into the first attorney position
[2:43:02] and leave a vacancy
[2:43:03] it's an obvious
[2:43:05] scam
[2:43:07] to get around
[2:43:08] this committee's norms
[2:43:10] and we have put up
[2:43:12] with this
[2:43:12] it didn't happen once
[2:43:14] it didn't happen twice
[2:43:15] it has happened over
[2:43:16] and over
[2:43:16] and over
[2:43:17] and over again
[2:43:18] and on top of that
[2:43:20] we've seen U.S. attorneys
[2:43:21] called out for misconduct
[2:43:23] over and over
[2:43:25] and over again
[2:43:26] none of this is normal
[2:43:28] none of this is normal
[2:43:30] and the fact that this committee
[2:43:33] won't look into it
[2:43:34] I think is a shame
[2:43:36] and I think if we try to be complicit
[2:43:38] in failing in our duty
[2:43:40] to look into this
[2:43:41] by combining
[2:43:43] the Blanche nomination hearing
[2:43:45] with the Department of Justice
[2:43:46] oversight hearing
[2:43:47] we will have made
[2:43:48] a very very grave mistake
[2:43:50] I know that the chairman
[2:43:52] is sympathetic
[2:43:54] to the oversight
[2:43:55] problems that we face here
[2:43:57] and the degree to which
[2:43:59] this department's behavior
[2:44:00] is exceptional
[2:44:01] and I look forward to
[2:44:04] having those hearings
[2:44:06] go forward in a way
[2:44:07] that reflects
[2:44:07] the chairman's
[2:44:09] consistent desires
[2:44:10] for real oversight
[2:44:11] and I hope that the
[2:44:13] proceedings reflect
[2:44:14] that
[2:44:15] together with the leaders
[2:44:18] of this bill
[2:44:18] Senator Coons
[2:44:19] and Senator Blackburn
[2:44:21] and I want to thank them
[2:44:22] from the very beginning
[2:44:23] this builds on
[2:44:25] some of the work
[2:44:26] that Senator Cruz
[2:44:27] and I did
[2:44:27] on the Take It Down Act
[2:44:28] which is now signed
[2:44:29] into law
[2:44:30] and the provision
[2:44:31] requiring the platforms
[2:44:33] to take down
[2:44:33] non-consensual images
[2:44:35] in 48 hours
[2:44:36] is now actually
[2:44:37] in effect
[2:44:38] as well as
[2:44:39] the increased penalties
[2:44:40] for the people
[2:44:41] that post
[2:44:43] the illegal images
[2:44:45] and I think
[2:44:47] this is a huge step forward
[2:44:48] and a model
[2:44:49] that we should be using
[2:44:50] in many contexts
[2:44:52] and while this law
[2:44:54] that we did before
[2:44:55] the No Fakes Act
[2:44:56] focused on the
[2:44:57] non-consensual images
[2:44:59] and puts the rules
[2:45:01] of the road
[2:45:02] to give people control
[2:45:04] over digital replicas
[2:45:06] of their voice
[2:45:06] and likeness
[2:45:07] this goes to something
[2:45:09] that we know
[2:45:09] has been a real
[2:45:11] real problem
[2:45:12] it's important
[2:45:13] we pass this bill
[2:45:14] because it is easier
[2:45:15] than ever
[2:45:15] to use AI tools
[2:45:17] to generate everything
[2:45:18] from images
[2:45:20] and videos
[2:45:21] songs
[2:45:22] recordings
[2:45:23] and even Senate hearings
[2:45:25] in fact
[2:45:26] Senator Blackburn
[2:45:28] and I held
[2:45:28] a hearing
[2:45:29] on privacy
[2:45:31] that was actually
[2:45:31] a great subcommittee
[2:45:32] hearing
[2:45:33] we walked out of there
[2:45:33] thinking this is so good
[2:45:34] maybe we can find
[2:45:36] a compromise
[2:45:36] on this
[2:45:37] and a day later
[2:45:38] I saw an image
[2:45:39] of myself
[2:45:39] and I thought
[2:45:41] oh wow
[2:45:41] this thing is getting
[2:45:43] so much attention
[2:45:44] it was me
[2:45:44] and she was sitting
[2:45:45] next to me
[2:45:46] and my staff
[2:45:47] was behind me
[2:45:48] and it was actually
[2:45:49] an AI image
[2:45:50] now that might have been
[2:45:51] considered parody
[2:45:52] I didn't think
[2:45:52] it was very funny
[2:45:53] with what they said
[2:45:54] they somehow put me
[2:45:56] in the middle
[2:45:56] of the Sydney
[2:45:57] Sweeney jeans
[2:45:58] campaign issue
[2:45:59] but it was startling
[2:46:01] as I looked at my feed
[2:46:02] and finally
[2:46:03] the platforms
[2:46:04] either took it down
[2:46:05] or put digitally altered
[2:46:07] on it
[2:46:07] a number of people
[2:46:08] believed that
[2:46:09] they believed
[2:46:10] I used language
[2:46:11] that I would never use
[2:46:12] in this hearing room
[2:46:13] they believed
[2:46:14] I said things
[2:46:15] that I would never say
[2:46:16] and to me
[2:46:17] it was an example
[2:46:18] of how quickly
[2:46:19] these things
[2:46:20] can go viral
[2:46:20] so what happened here
[2:46:23] and by the way
[2:46:24] if it is parody
[2:46:25] I believe it should
[2:46:26] I have another piece
[2:46:27] of legislation
[2:46:28] that says that
[2:46:28] it should say
[2:46:29] digitally altered
[2:46:30] so technology
[2:46:32] led to incredible things
[2:46:33] last year
[2:46:34] we did an event
[2:46:35] the four of us
[2:46:36] with Randy Travis
[2:46:36] who lost his ability
[2:46:38] to sing
[2:46:39] after having a stroke
[2:46:41] and using AI replicas
[2:46:43] of his own voice
[2:46:44] he's been able
[2:46:44] to continue
[2:46:45] putting out music
[2:46:46] but that's because
[2:46:47] it's his voice
[2:46:48] it's his decision
[2:46:49] easy access to this technology
[2:46:52] has created real challenges
[2:46:53] that harm real people
[2:46:55] Sony Music
[2:46:56] has identified
[2:46:56] more than 135,000 songs
[2:46:59] with unauthorized deep fakes
[2:47:01] on streaming services
[2:47:03] so so much
[2:47:04] of what our country
[2:47:05] is based on
[2:47:05] and our innovation
[2:47:07] and our economy
[2:47:08] is based on ideas
[2:47:09] innovation
[2:47:10] people's intellectual
[2:47:12] products
[2:47:13] their own creations
[2:47:15] and if we mess around
[2:47:16] with this with AI
[2:47:17] and don't reward them
[2:47:18] for that
[2:47:19] we're going to mess around
[2:47:20] with our entire economy
[2:47:21] it isn't just artists
[2:47:23] consumers lost
[2:47:25] more than 3.5 billion dollars
[2:47:27] through imposter schemes
[2:47:28] and so that's why
[2:47:30] this bill is so important
[2:47:31] everyone should have
[2:47:32] the right to privacy
[2:47:33] and the right
[2:47:34] to control their own voice
[2:47:36] and their own likeness
[2:47:38] and I'll just end
[2:47:39] by thanking the consumer
[2:47:40] artists
[2:47:41] entertainment
[2:47:42] labor
[2:47:42] tech stakeholders
[2:47:43] that have come together
[2:47:45] to support this bill
[2:47:47] you must know
[2:47:47] something's going right
[2:47:49] Senator Blackburn
[2:47:49] when you can announce
[2:47:51] that you have
[2:47:51] the American Medical Association
[2:47:53] and SAG Actra
[2:47:54] supporting the same bill
[2:47:55] it's just a
[2:47:56] usually these interests
[2:47:57] don't align on something
[2:47:59] it's not like
[2:47:59] they're opposed
[2:48:00] but it just shows
[2:48:01] the broad coalition
[2:48:03] that supports
[2:48:04] doing something
[2:48:05] about this challenging
[2:48:06] and growing problem
[2:48:07] thank you
[2:48:08] before Senator Padilla
[2:48:10] and then Senator Cruz
[2:48:12] this is an extraordinarily
[2:48:14] ill-motivated candidate
[2:48:16] for the judiciary
[2:48:17] who has expressly said
[2:48:20] it's not his intention
[2:48:21] to follow the law
[2:48:21] but rather to impose
[2:48:22] his view of what he calls
[2:48:24] traditional western values
[2:48:26] he has derided textualism
[2:48:29] and indeed said
[2:48:30] a court that correctly
[2:48:32] decides cases
[2:48:33] on narrow grounds
[2:48:34] without upsetting
[2:48:36] long set
[2:48:37] but badly flawed
[2:48:39] precedents
[2:48:40] will not be much use
[2:48:41] that is unacceptable
[2:48:43] for the conservative
[2:48:44] movement of today
[2:48:46] in his own words
[2:48:48] he will use
[2:48:50] his seat on the bench
[2:48:51] to impose
[2:48:52] his view
[2:48:53] of traditional western values
[2:48:54] to press
[2:48:56] for the conservative
[2:48:57] movement of today
[2:48:58] and will avoid
[2:49:00] and indeed
[2:49:00] seems to mock
[2:49:02] the notion
[2:49:03] of correctly
[2:49:03] deciding cases
[2:49:05] on narrow grounds
[2:49:06] textualism
[2:49:07] and minimalism
[2:49:08] used to be
[2:49:09] conservative values
[2:49:10] this does not
[2:49:11] provide that
[2:49:12] the clerk will call
[2:49:13] the roll on flowers
[2:49:14] flag for my colleagues
[2:49:16] that this individual
[2:49:17] represents president
[2:49:18] trump personally
[2:49:19] in his appeal
[2:49:20] of the 34 felony
[2:49:22] convictions
[2:49:23] for falsifying
[2:49:24] business records
[2:49:25] related to his payments
[2:49:26] to stormy daniels
[2:49:29] and also in the
[2:49:30] 464 million dollar
[2:49:32] judgment
[2:49:32] against trump
[2:49:33] and his family members
[2:49:34] and his business
[2:49:35] for inflated
[2:49:36] value of business assets
[2:49:38] the president
[2:49:39] still owes the firm
[2:49:40] $400,000 evidently
[2:49:43] and notwithstanding
[2:49:44] the chairman's comments
[2:49:45] earlier about following
[2:49:46] norms
[2:49:47] no blue slip
[2:49:48] from either of the
[2:49:49] New York senators
[2:49:50] I urge a no vote
[2:49:51] the clerk will call
[2:49:53] the roll on Schwartz
[2:49:54] thank you mr chairman
[2:49:56] I want to offer
[2:49:57] my strong support
[2:49:58] for the no fakes act
[2:49:59] today
[2:49:59] throughout my time
[2:50:00] in congress
[2:50:01] I've proudly represented
[2:50:02] the creative capital
[2:50:03] of the world
[2:50:03] and I've always believed
[2:50:05] that our creative economy
[2:50:06] and hundreds of thousands
[2:50:08] of hard-working people
[2:50:09] behind it
[2:50:09] deserve strong protections
[2:50:10] for their talents
[2:50:12] voices and likeness
[2:50:13] which make up the foundation
[2:50:14] of their livelihoods
[2:50:15] but in the advent of AI
[2:50:17] those livelihoods
[2:50:18] as well as the identities
[2:50:19] of everyday Americans
[2:50:20] are under threat
[2:50:21] the rapid advancement
[2:50:22] of generative AI
[2:50:24] has brought incredible
[2:50:25] innovation
[2:50:25] but it's also unleashed
[2:50:26] a wave
[2:50:27] of unauthorized exploitation
[2:50:29] we see this in the voices
[2:50:31] and visual likenesses
[2:50:32] of individuals
[2:50:33] from celebrities
[2:50:34] to children
[2:50:35] being replicated
[2:50:37] and weaponized
[2:50:38] without their permission
[2:50:38] and sometimes
[2:50:40] without their knowledge
[2:50:41] that is why
[2:50:42] I've long supported
[2:50:43] the no fakes act
[2:50:44] this legislation
[2:50:45] backed by a wide coalition
[2:50:47] establishes a clear
[2:50:48] federal right
[2:50:49] protecting all individuals
[2:50:50] from unauthorized
[2:50:52] digital replicas
[2:50:53] the performers
[2:50:55] and voice actors
[2:50:55] who power a country's
[2:50:56] greatest cultural export
[2:50:58] deserve to know
[2:50:59] that their faces
[2:51:00] and voices
[2:51:00] won't be used
[2:51:01] to replace them
[2:51:02] in order to protect
[2:51:03] human creativity
[2:51:04] and prevent against
[2:51:05] worse exploitation
[2:51:07] I urge my colleagues
[2:51:09] to support this bill
[2:51:10] and I yield back
[2:51:11] Chairman
[2:51:12] I'm in this seat
[2:51:14] this morning
[2:51:16] because Illinois
[2:51:19] Senator Durbin
[2:51:21] was a close friend
[2:51:24] of Illinois Senator Obama
[2:51:26] and then U.S. President Obama
[2:51:29] and today
[2:51:31] in a star-studded celebration
[2:51:35] the Obama Presidential Library
[2:51:37] is going to open
[2:51:38] and Senator Durbin
[2:51:40] very, very much
[2:51:41] wanted to be there
[2:51:42] I think he is exactly
[2:51:44] where he should be
[2:51:46] and that leaves me
[2:51:48] to fill in for him today
[2:51:50] I'd like to take
[2:51:53] my time this morning
[2:51:54] to suggest
[2:51:56] that combining
[2:51:59] our oversight hearing
[2:52:01] of the Department of Justice
[2:52:03] with the nominations hearing
[2:52:06] for Acting Attorney General Blanche
[2:52:10] would be a grave mistake
[2:52:14] for the committee
[2:52:15] I don't believe we did that
[2:52:18] with Attorney General Garland
[2:52:20] and I think
[2:52:23] the record
[2:52:24] of the Department of Justice
[2:52:26] under Todd Blanche
[2:52:29] lends itself
[2:52:30] to very vigorous oversight
[2:52:34] oversight which we have been denied
[2:52:37] because when we ask questions
[2:52:41] we get scripted litanies
[2:52:44] of insult and quarrel
[2:52:46] rather than actual answers
[2:52:47] to our questions
[2:52:49] when we ask for documents
[2:52:52] and records in writing
[2:52:54] we get nothing
[2:52:55] we are reduced to filing
[2:52:58] FOIA requests
[2:52:59] that are then not even complied with
[2:53:01] as FOIA requests
[2:53:03] so the oversight function
[2:53:08] of this committee
[2:53:09] is really I think
[2:53:11] being systematically disabled
[2:53:13] that's particularly significant
[2:53:15] when you have Attorney General Bondi
[2:53:17] saying that it was
[2:53:19] Todd Blanche
[2:53:21] who was responsible
[2:53:23] for the Epstein files disaster
[2:53:27] the releases of private information
[2:53:30] and images of victims
[2:53:32] the cover-up of documents
[2:53:36] that named Donald Trump
[2:53:38] and just the general incompetence
[2:53:42] of the whole wretched mess
[2:53:45] I don't think
[2:53:47] that it would be a good idea
[2:53:49] for this committee
[2:53:50] to be complicit
[2:53:53] in covering up
[2:53:55] the cover-up
[2:53:56] of the Epstein files
[2:53:59] move on to the slush fund
[2:54:02] which a great number
[2:54:04] of my Republican colleagues
[2:54:05] have expressed real reservations about
[2:54:08] with its attachment
[2:54:09] of a tax amnesty deal
[2:54:11] for Trump
[2:54:13] the Trump family
[2:54:14] and the Trump businesses
[2:54:16] there are very legitimate questions
[2:54:20] to be asked about that
[2:54:21] including
[2:54:23] has that cockamamie idea
[2:54:25] really been withdrawn
[2:54:26] or is it just being hidden briefly
[2:54:30] so it can resurface
[2:54:32] in some other fashion
[2:54:33] we should be looking into this
[2:54:37] as a committee
[2:54:37] it's important stuff
[2:54:40] and even if we shirk
[2:54:42] our duties
[2:54:43] at looking into all of this
[2:54:45] it appears
[2:54:46] that a Florida court
[2:54:48] is going to be looking into
[2:54:49] all of this
[2:54:50] and I think it's a bad look
[2:54:52] for the committee
[2:54:53] to be turning a blind eye
[2:54:55] to what went into
[2:54:56] the slush fund deal
[2:54:57] and the tax amnesty deal
[2:55:00] and then discover
[2:55:02] through a court proceeding
[2:55:04] in Florida
[2:55:04] all the stuff
[2:55:06] that we failed to look at
[2:55:08] it's hard to be taken seriously
[2:55:10] if we have failed
[2:55:12] to do our own duty
[2:55:13] and then
[2:55:14] the court proceedings
[2:55:15] reveal
[2:55:17] the mischief
[2:55:18] I will say that
[2:55:20] I've looked
[2:55:21] I have never
[2:55:23] ever
[2:55:24] heard
[2:55:26] of senior officials
[2:55:28] of the Department of Justice
[2:55:30] being called
[2:55:33] before a court
[2:55:34] with respect to
[2:55:36] a fraud
[2:55:37] upon the court
[2:55:38] look up
[2:55:39] of the court
[2:55:55] on the court
[2:55:57] on the court
[2:55:57] and then
[2:55:58] so
[2:55:58] I know
[2:55:59] I don't know
[2:55:59] who's from
[2:56:00] what's going on
[2:56:01] so