[Pages S6411-S6413]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Unanimous Consent Requests

  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, let me tell you two brief stories.
  A high schooler takes from the internet a picture of a female 
classmate, then uses artificial intelligence to ``nudify'' that young 
girl, and shares this deepfake sexually explicit image with the rest of 
the school on social media. The classmate--mortified and humiliated--
doesn't want to show her face at school. She is afraid. She spends a 
week begging her parents not to force her to go back. Her parents, 
futilely, report the images to the social media company, but they never 
hear even a word back. Meanwhile, everyone at the school knows who 
distributed this sexually explicit image of this 14-year-old girl, but 
he faces no consequences.
  Here is the second story: A teenage boy begins a relationship online 
with a young girl. He is smitten, and they decide to swap explicit 
photos with each other, but it turns out the teenage girl is a scammer, 
and he has just fallen prey to sextortion. The scammer repeatedly 
messages the young man, demanding payment or the explicit photos will 
be sent to his friends via a social media network. The young man--
embarrassed, mortified, thinking there is no way out--dies by suicide. 
His name was Gavin Guffey.
  His father is here today advocating to hold Big Tech accountable. On 
my lapel, I am wearing the heart emoji that Gavin texted his family 
moments before he took his own life.
  Where do these stories take place--in Texas? New Jersey? South 
Carolina? Washington? California? Illinois? Florida? Sadly, the answer 
is all of them.
  American high schools are experiencing an explosion of AI-generated 
sexual images, and in many cases, there is no consequence and no 
recourse for the teenage girls or boys like Gavin. There have been 
thousands and thousands of cases of sleazebags using nonconsensual, 
intimate images to extort victims both sexually and financially.
  In fact, the FBI just issued a warning this year about the growing 
threat of sextortion for minors online. There are dozens of families 
across the country whose children have taken their own lives because of 
their fear of these images being released. There are hundreds of high 
schoolers targeted, often by their own classmates, who are experiencing 
incredible psychological harms in knowing that these images exist and 
are still out there.
  And your child's images aren't just targeted while they are in middle 
school or in high school. In New York, a young man right out of high 
school took images of his former classmates from their social media 
profiles and used AI to alter the images in a sexually explicit manner. 
He then posted them for the world to see, along with their personal 
identifying information, encouraging violence and harassment against 
those he was victimizing. He was convicted only of a misdemeanor, and 
he faced zero charges for the deepfake explicit images. I would venture 
to guess some of the victims tried and failed to get these fake images 
removed by the tech company.
  I have spoken to these victims and their parents, including two 14-
year-old girls who were victims in the same month, with the same story, 
on opposite sides of the country. These girls were scared; they were 
hopeless; but they also wanted justice and relief from these images so 
they took action.
  Elliston Berry of Texas and Francesca Mani of New Jersey bravely 
spoke up about their experiences and how the TAKE IT DOWN Act--my 
bipartisan legislation with Democrat Senator Amy Klobuchar--would have 
protected them and afforded them justice for these horrific acts. Both 
Elliston and Francesca testified at a field hearing for the Senate 
Commerce

[[Page S6412]]

Committee, bravely sharing their stories.
  There are 29 States that have not criminalized deepfake revenge porn. 
Thus, law enforcement in those States cannot prosecute the slimeballs 
who peddle this lifelike, yet fake, smut. That is justice denied for 
these teenagers and other victims.
  The TAKE IT DOWN Act empowers victims across the entire United 
States. It makes it a felony for these creeps to use AI to create and 
publish fake, lifelike pornographic images of real people.
  Just as importantly, our bipartisan bill requires Big Tech to have a 
notice and takedown process so that every American--not just the Taylor 
Swifts of this country who are famous enough that they can get the 
images taken down but every American and every teenager in junior high 
and high school who is victimized--like Elliston and Francesca and 
Gavin--can get these disturbing images taken offline immediately. I 
don't want to see another family suffer such a fate, which is why I am 
on the floor today, trying to pass the TAKE IT DOWN Act.
  This bill is overwhelmingly bipartisan. There are nearly 20 
Republican and Democrat cosponsors of this bill. Over 80 organizations, 
including victims' advocates, including unions, including law 
enforcement are backing this bipartisan legislation. The TAKE IT DOWN 
Act passed the Senate Commerce Committee unanimously. Every Republican, 
every Democrat on the committee voted for this legislation. The House 
companion, likewise, has strong bipartisan support.
  The Senate acted on parts of this issue earlier this year in having 
passed two complementary pieces of legislation 11 weeks ago. However, 
neither of these other bills empowers victims to get their explicit 
images--real or fake--removed from websites. In a moment, 
unfortunately, you will be hearing an objection from my colleague, the 
Senator from New Jersey, who previously supported both of these 
complementary bills.
  One of these bills is the SHIELD Act, authored by Senator Klobuchar--
the coauthor of my TAKE IT DOWN Act as well. The SHIELD Act was 
significantly modified at the request of my colleague from New Jersey 
before he would allow that to pass. The TAKE IT DOWN Act deliberately 
adopted the exact same language that the Senator from New Jersey 
requested in the SHIELD Act--everything he requested--from the same 
sentencing provisions to the same intent provisions, to the same 
exceptions to the bill. Now it appears the Senator from New Jersey no 
longer supports the language he voted for and the language he 
negotiated and helped draft.
  It cannot be that the Senator from New Jersey is concerned about free 
speech matters, because he has already agreed to pass two bills that 
deal with this very same issue and using the same language. I certainly 
hope that the Senator from New Jersey doesn't actually believe that 
realistic child pornography, as we have described here today, is 
somehow protected speech under any of our legal precedents. It is not.
  The only difference between the two bills that, perhaps, the Senator 
from New Jersey can possibly point to is that the TAKE IT DOWN Act 
criminalizes the publication of deepfake revenge porn--an issue this 
body has not yet addressed--and that the TAKE IT DOWN Act requires big 
tech companies to remove these heinous images upon notice from the 
victims in order to protect the victims. Neither of these positive 
changes are good reasons to hold up the bill, but they are essential to 
bringing justice to our constituents from Francesca to Elliston.
  So, if the Senator from New Jersey objects, teenage girls like 
Francesca Mani of New Jersey, like Elliston Berry of Texas, or teenage 
boys like Gavin Guffey will have no protection from sextortion or from 
having fake sexual abuse materials--images and videos, literal child 
pornography--being publicly shared by predators and sex offenders. If 
he objects, the next Francesca, the next Elliston, the next Gavin won't 
be able to force Snapchat or Instagram or TikTok to step up and take 
down this abusive content.
  For the folks at home, I want you to listen very carefully. Sometimes 
Senate procedure can be confusing. I want you to listen for two words 
from the Senator from New Jersey: ``I object.'' Let me tell you how 
this works. If he doesn't say those two words, this legislation will, 
right now, this evening, pass the U.S. Senate 100 to nothing.
  And understand, this legislation--99 Senators have already indicated 
they have no objections to this legislation. All the Senator from New 
Jersey has to do is not say those two words, ``I object,'' and this law 
is passing the Senate unanimously. On the other hand, if you hear those 
two words, ``I object,'' the result is going to be that this 
legislation is defeated on the floor of the Senate.
  On behalf of Elliston Berry, on behalf of Francesca Mani, on behalf 
of the memory of Gavin Guffey and his family who still grieves his 
loss, on behalf of the countless teenagers and others who have been 
victimized by real and by deepfake explicit images, on behalf of the 
thousands more teenagers and women who are likely to be victims of this 
abuse in the future, I urge my colleagues to come together with a 
simple, bipartisan, commonsense step and pass the TAKE IT DOWN Act.
  Therefore, Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation be discharged from further consideration of S. 4569 and 
the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the 
Cruz-Klobuchar substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the 
bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that 
the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BOOKER. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. I have to tell you, I am saddened that the Senator from New 
Jersey chose to give no explanation for his objection; chose to give no 
reason to Francesca, why she is being denied; no reason to Elliston; no 
reason to Gavin.
  He had an opportunity to explain his objections. Do you know what he 
said? Nothing.
  Nearly 2 weeks ago was when I circulated this amendment to both sides 
of the aisle, and it cleared 99 Senators. He had a week and a half to 
object. Yesterday, this legislation was about to pass, and an hour 
before it was going to pass, the Senator from New Jersey raised his 
objection. He said last night: Ted, I haven't had time to read the 
bill.
  It had been circulated to his office 2 weeks earlier, but he said he 
hadn't had time to read the bill.
  I said: Great. I will delay this for a day so you can read the bill. 
The language in the bill is word for word verbatim the language you 
agreed to, you have voted for, and you negotiated.
  He said he had numerous substantive objections. If he does, we heard 
none of them, not a word of it.
  It makes me sad that he doesn't feel his constituents deserve any 
explanation for blocking legislation as important as this.
  Madam President, it is not lost on anyone that this is an election 
year. And I will say, absent a single substantive objection, the 
obvious inference is that this objection is being made because we have 
got an election in less than 6 weeks.
  I consider the Senator from New Jersey a friend. I sure hope he is 
not standing up here denying victims of this abuse relief simply to 
score partisan political points. I would like to think he wouldn't do 
such a thing.
  But in order for me to believe he wouldn't do such a thing, he needs 
to actually explain some reason for his objection, which at least, so 
far, he has not bothered to do.
  I will tell you, we had an agreement negotiated with the majority 
leader to pass an entire package of bills--Republican bills and 
Democrat bills--that have passed the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation. All of that package was going to pass 
yesterday until, at the last minute, the Senator from New Jersey came 
with his midnight objection and no reasoning whatsoever.
  So I am now going to give this body the opportunity to pass the 
package that had been negotiated in a bipartisan manner, that had been 
agreed to,

[[Page S6413]]

and we are going to find out if the Senator from New Jersey will not 
only object to providing relief to the victims of this abuse but will 
object to multiple other bills that are bipartisan bills supported by 
Members of this body, because he wants to play partisan politics 
instead. I hope he does not.
  Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the 
following bills en bloc: S. 4569, the TAKE IT DOWN Act, Cruz-Klobuchar; 
Calendar No. 473, S. 275, the Rural Broadband Protection Act of 2024, 
Capito-Klobuchar; Calendar No. 474, S. 1570, the Bottles and 
Breastfeeding Equipment Screening Enhancement Act, Duckworth and 
Daines; Calendar No. 285, S. 1153, the National Manufacturing Advisory 
Council for the 21st Century Act, Peters and Rubio; Calendar No. 480, 
S. 3475, Strengthening the Commercial Driver's License Information 
System Act, Peters and Young; Calendar No. 479, S. 3277, the Marine 
Debris reauthorization, Sullivan and Whitehouse; Calendar No. 513, S. 
4212, the American Music Tourism Act of 2024, Blackburn and 
Hickenlooper; and Calendar No. 485, S. 4107, the Think Differently 
Transportation Act, Duckworth and Capito; further, that S. 4569 be 
discharged from the Committee on Commerce; that the committee-reported 
amendments, where applicable, be agreed to; that the Cruz-Klobuchar 
amendment to S. 4569, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed 
to; that the bills, as amended, if amended, be considered read a third 
time and passed en bloc; and that the motions to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BOOKER. I object.
  Madam President, the sharing of nonconsensual intimate images online 
is harmful and unacceptable. It is a serious problem that is affecting 
too many Americans. Many times, it is impacting our young people, and 
we need to do more to ensure that digital platforms are not used to 
harass and harm.
  We need ethical guardrails for emerging technologies including 
generative AI. This means laws that protect people from harassment and 
hold wrongdoers accountable, but do not have unintended criminal 
consequences.
  I had hoped the junior Senator from Texas would work with me rather 
than using Senate procedure to create the false appearance of 
partisanship. He used personal attacks and half truths to politicize 
the serious issue of online sexual harassment. I have and will continue 
to work with my colleagues to combat the issue of online sexual 
harassment. I look forward to finding solutions to address the 
proliferation of nonconsensual intimate images online.
  Online sexual harassment and so many other issues that impact 
Americans, from public safety to reproductive care to failing power 
grids, are urgent and it is our duty to address them. However, taking 
to the Senate floor with veiled threats is not how we should operate in 
this deliberative body. We are here to work together and to find 
solutions together.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.