Power plant admissions. So, administrative reagan, can you reit gait how it could impede the rule making process with respect to pollution control measures that directly affect climate change. I can assure you a Government Shutdown would be detrimental to any work done on regulations that would help us stay globally competitive and take advantage of technology or regulations to protect vulnerable communities and children from horrible 2. 5 polluting as well. We are doing critical work to stay ahead of wildfires we are seeing across the country and we have to be in a position where staff is doing the research so we can alert immunities of the impacts. We are also trying to respond to the drought situation from impact as well so reduce the ability to respond to the Climate Impact and slow the ability to regulate emerging contaminants and prevent us fron protecting Public Health. I would say those inspectors on the job to ensure Water Infrastructure, safe Drinking Water, those will be allocated to their homes if we have a shutdown. To switch gears a bit, hr 4296 weatherization resilience and Adaptation Program which would help low income Affordable Housing about his protector homes from disastrous effects of climatee change as part of the Program Including pa devereaux in setting standards and guidance for communitiesan on hw to make homes and property more resilient and adopted to a changing world. He mentioned research helping areas improve resilience to floods and wildfires. He mentioned the hc setting naturalen solutions to resiliene such as the grass to store carbon. Could you share the research in this regard and talk about how you are ordaining on this research with other agencies to the extent that you are. We are looking at a whole of government approach. I would argue whether it seagrass or plethora of crops and am constantlyth talking abot wetlands that helpp us filter pollution. We are looking at an all of the above reproach to sequester carbon and filter through natural opportunities. I would like to say as we look at natural solutions, we believe we can do a lot through voluntary marketbased incentive programs that dontth have heavy Regulatory Framework associated so its an all hands on deck, who want to be pragmatic, on that front like ready for the race and i think we are doing a good job working across the board define every tool we have. The chair recognizes myself for five minutes. Administer greg, i want to let you know we have several committees going on but ive been following you and watching and listening to your answers. You doll give the answers as people talk to you and i appreciate that. A lot of times we see people back and forth just to try to figure out the answer, the canned answer but i i want to go into different areas because the epa is purchasing millions worth of advanced combat. Ive heard about this on a slightly different question. A lot of us includes night vision so why does the epa need military equipment . Camaro give the same answer i said before, i need to look into this particular issue and the reasoning behind enforcement arms making this integrated i would love to get back to you on that. You are not going to war against anyone . [laughter] theres no one to go into work against. I believe related constituencies are partners and we are trying to do these things together. How are americans supposed to feel about an agency . A lot ofan us feel our rights ae trampled on especially when you stock up on weapons so i love to have a detailed answer is that especially if there isnt a war on the horizon for the epa. Absolutely. Another area i want to go into, my background is tracking. Ive been in the private sector 30 years and this is my first term in congress so spent my entire life in the Trucking Industry building the Trucking Industry with my wife. He proposed a new goal that will impose more burden on the commercial industry so do you have your way, new standards willrd make new trucks even more expensive. Prices have gone up astronomically over the past decade and a lot of times what you do as an adverse affect because the new emission rules other are shutting down trucks left and right. Im sure youve seen them but a lot of times we cant even get sensor to replace and its making trucks even more expensive it is hurting trucking overall. Reviewed of the companys oscar, 95 are three trucks or less. Do you understand the hardship economicic hardship regulations put on truckers especially with Small Businesses . I appreciate the Trucking Industry and commerce and keeping our economy going. We have proposed a rule, ive met with the Trucking Industry should and we have received thousands of comments. We are trying to think through whether or not the proposed rule addresses the technologiesly available in the information in terms of costs associated and time frames. What you say truckers trying to compete . What you say . High prices on everything and they are people moving the products up and down the road and we feel bureaucracy wasnt fantasyland. I was a we are listening, we made a proposal based on the crude way of saying we have done things academically and its time to test the theories with actuality and implementation and with got divorce the table from your industry and others saying your assumptions may be aggressive or all but in my not be as available as you think. Ill be honest with you, and my career i have seen where the Trucking Industry has made Great Strides and even fuel economy and the epa will come out with some rule and it will increase the amount of oil we use in our trucks and decrease the integrals the fuel out of those trucks and decrease the life of the engine and it seems like auto who the epa talks to or listens to but its certainly not the Trucking Companies trying to make a living. With that, ill yield back and the chair recognizes mr. Cross from florida for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here today. My district includes the small Rural Community of delillo, its a community that both federal and local because of Illegal Dumping and abandoned gas stations, they leak into the groundwater. Most folks in the community cant support the walls or Water Filtration systems so people to understand or know, dont have public water source and we hope to help them fix. When we are out there chatting with residents people are scared and they dont know the quality of the one of their drinking and as a result residents have higher rates of cancer, brain disease and the tenor and its not just that, the community lacks real infrastructure, social programs, Environmental Issues on top of that exacerbated drug addiction as well. Being out there is difficult, its a difficult situation. Suicide, overdose and etc. So i had a great conversation with regional administrator gail and he committed to come out and we are hoping to get on the schedule soon. The communities with the greatest needs are often times the ones without resources and connections or know how to secure funding needed to take care of these problems so how does the epa make sure its like rainwater and Drinking Water grants reach all communities with limited experience with the federal grant making process . Thank you for your leadership and appreciate your questioning. Theres a couple things i would like to say thanks to the bipartisan infrastructure law and inflation production act, we have resources we can put to used to provide Technical Assistance to these communities so they are a competitor position to receive these resources. We have come back and look at traditional funding at the state level through appropriations to see where the governors are spending their money and we have added criteria sure amenities like the one you listed have a seat at the table and can be competitive for these resources so right now there is more competitive opportunity for communities like this, 50 billion in Water Infrastructure resources to funnel to those communities the other thing is 40 of those resources have to go communities disadvantaged or lower income or lack infrastructure to provide for their communities. Again, we have ramped up outreach in addition, have administrators that will come in when time and listen to the community and help them think through how to get those resources. We got a holistic approach there. What can our office to ahead of the meetingap to make sure te best ways for a productive visit . Willa get photos and show them around but what can we do to prepareso so their real resourc . Ask for the meeting which i will make sure happens. I think the understanding of community makeup, infrastructure make up, unique challenges the community faces, if we understandnd that before we geto the meeting, we are better prepared to provide answers and assurances so a preliminaryry meeting would be advisable and whate. We are learning as so may communities have been left behind, so many different colleges, there isnt this at all, the best way to be prepared is armed with the information. What would a Government Shutdown me for communities like this across the Country Living with undrinkable water . What Government Shutdown mean . We can have meanings like the one you justke said, regional experts go down and talk through how to solve the solutions. We cant send inspectors to ensure the water they are drinking safe. We cant look at billions of dollars we dedicate small Rural Communities to combat contaminants, we cannot do this work. Communities will be left behind if the government shuts down but the communities already impacted will be further left behind. Thank you for being here today, i look back. The chair recognizes mr. Tomko for five minutes. I think the chair and Ranking Member for holding this important hearing. Thank you for your excellent leadership, we appreciate it. Integrity is essential to protect Public Health and the environment. I have lots of efforts to prioritize and build the integrity of the agency and disastrous political interference in the last administration. Scientific integrity is something i have focused on during my time in congress by offering and fighting for scientific integrity act. I believe it is crucial we continue to Work Together strengthen and improve policies across the federal government. I was excited to see the office of science and technology released federal scientific administrator, can you provide an update of the epa has made building and incrementing updated scientific integrity policy . We are excited. Under this administration scientists have a seat at the table and we are listening and did has invigorated, we are hoping will have a new policy s a result of the leadership youve demonstrated by this winter. New way of instilling confidence science, not politics leading the way. Can you speak to the role of the office providing advice to employees and addressing the potential issues before they become fullfledged violations of the agencies integrity policy . Who taken very seriously and im excited to see cooperation at all levels within the agency to be sure we are not prohibiting best available science to move forward. We are responding to recommendations of how we can do it better. I have had a number of conversations on how can follow guidance so i was say i am proud of scientific integrity process, something that is taken seriously all our leaders and we are seeing the agency take strides in this area. How important is it for complaints and seeking advice from Scientific Integrity Office . All of our employees let us know work will be done and received in good faith and not face retribution. We want to follow the signs, the law. That is our mission and goal. In order too get the best out of our employees, they have tobe build safe and comfortable they have to believe they are going to be listed to doing that. Earlier in my tenure in congress, i made a goal to bring attention to our infrastructure incredibly important to our communities and way of life and businesses that require water. As we did many chores along the eastern seaboard, one of the discoveries repeated over and over was lack of an interest in issues like those required to maintain water supplies, terrific responsibilities but failed because there wasnt that attention in the area of infrastructure so yesterday i was thrilled to see the epa announced the Grant Funding developing Career Opportunities in the water sector. The workforce is essential to protect environment to host from pipes and pumps to rivers and lakes and infrastructure is in dire need of restoration and need for human infrastructure buildup. Like many, sectors facing unprecedented staff shortage. Can you speak to the current need of the water sector and how this will bolster the next generation and the Young Professionals be required to careers in order . Thank you for your leadership but this 50 billion we are not investing in Water Infrastructure so personal and have something here how to manage so these thing facilities now will be revised and the need a skill set to manage. We are spending resources because we spent time on the ground with mayors with utility operatorss understanding the he workforce. Itss instilling pride, bringig back educated well resourced individuals to run these facilities and ensure their communities receive good quality Drinking Water. I think weve connected those of us and we are investing in infrastructure in the people and i believe now we are on track to get more people clean Drinking Water can we have had in a long time. Very much encouraged that. With that in your back. This hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] monday, march hes been series in partnership with the library of congress, books that shaped america. Future narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass written in 1845, the first of three autobiographies Frederick Douglass and deeply personal and sometimes graphic language he described his childhood years on the Eastern Shore of maryland. His time as a slave in baltimore and his escape north in 1838. The book was widely sold and had the influenced family she. Watch books that shaped america featuring the life of Frederick Douglass. Monday live 9 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan, cspan now, free mobile video out or online at cspan. Org. For sure to scan the qr code and listen to our companion podcast for you can learn more about the authors of the book features. Cspan is the unfiltered view of government funded by these Television Companies and more including charter communications. Charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers and via just Getting Started building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. Charter Communications Support cspan as a Public Service along with these other Television Providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. A look at preventing the use of a eye contact and Campaign Material with the former chair of the federal Election Commission and other witnesses testifying before the senate most of the administration committee. This is about two hours. Good afternoon, i am honored to call this hearing to order. I am pleased to be here with my colleague senator fisher, ruby red slippers that symbolize theres no place like home. This week in washington is on your mind so thank you for being here, i know we have other members here and i want to thank Ranking Member and her staff and chukar elections. Will introduce our witnesses shortly but we are joined by secretary of state steve sammons, faxed experience running elections reflected in our state and the president of the Campaign Center and, commissioner and chair, thank you for being here. To remaining witnesses. Senior Research Fellow at the center for growth and opportunity and free speech counsel at freedom. Any emerging technology a. I. Comes with significant risk and our loss need to keep up. Some of the risks are ready security which includes protecting Critical Infrastructure against cyber, attacks and staying ahead of one adversary. People who produce constant encountering among resident and i to scam people. Confronting these issues is a major bipartisan focus here in the Senate Two Weeks ago convened the person series to discuss the technology with experts of all backgrounds. As for how we addressed given democracy and the hope is to move this by year end of a registration with bipartisan support. There was an a. I. Generation and people from the opposing party in high nearly 200,000 users in a weekend a. I. Generated content has begun to appear in political ads, one a. I. Generated image, trump hugging. The problem for voters is people not be able to distinguish the opposing candidate and that is in a democracy. President biden or other elected officials and anyone with a computer can support. That would pose a problem during an emergency situation like Natural Disaster and hard to imagine it being used to confuse people rude its also about people being able to vote and the judiciary hearing i asked that we ask chatgpt to write a tweet in bloomington, minnesota and i noted sometimes what should voters do . Quickly should set up, there is no such location in minnesota so you have a problem more likely to occur. With a. I. , the disinformation we have seen will quickly grow in quantity and quality and we need guardrails to protect our elections. But we do . I hope that will be in addition to admiring the problems we can discuss today. Senator holly and i worked on the bill together, hold your beer, thats correct, it will your leading together like the ones i talked about, former President Trump used against Elizabeth Warren. Senator collins and senator coombs and senator rick dust already, we just need to use it and it creates a framework that is constitutionally all right based on satire. Another transparency what technology is disclaimer brother at. It is reading it in the house and a disclaimer that includes a. I. Generated a. I. Is being used in the campaign ads. Finally, are you happy about that . There we go. It is important Elections Commission doing their part on these now accepting almost on campaign ads on the issue earlier this summer. We must remain focused on keeping action so whether you agree or not there is currently the power to do that, theres something wrong trying it out, if that is the very so we are working with republicans on the issue as well. As well as a host the great opportunity while patrolling the threats emerging and those who will use this technology to spread this election whether it is domestic. I believe strongly in the power of elections and innovation. And during that line to allow voters to vote while putting guardrails in place. Thank you chairman klobuchar and to our Witnesses Today being here. I look forward to hearing your testimony. Congress often examines issues on a daily basis. Artificial intelligence has become one of those issues. A. I. Isnt new but significant increases Computing Power revolutionized its capability it is quickly moved from the stuff of Science Fiction to be part of our daily lives there is no question a. I. Is transformative and evolves rapidly. This makes understanding a. I. All the more important and considering whether legislation is necessary congress should weigh the benefits and risk of a. I. And look out innovative uses a. I. Could approve the lives of constituents and dangers a. I. Could pose. We should consider possible economic advantages and falls. We should thoughtfully examine existing laws and regulations and how they might apply a. I. Its a hot topic here in washington and many of my colleagues and committees in both chambers are scoring this issue. The rules Committee Jurisdiction includes federal laws governing elections and Campaign Finance and we are here today to talk about how a. I. Impacts campaign, politics and elections. The use of a. I. For fraudulent campaign ads. On the other hand, a. I. Can allow campaigns to more efficiently and effectively reach voters. A. I. Driven technology can be used to check images, video and audio for authenticity as we learn more, we must keep in mind important protections our constitution provides for free speech in this country. Those protections are provided for preserving our democracy. For a long time we didnt have any reason to consider the sources. Or if it matters whether a. I. Was helping. Our First Amendment prohibits the government from policing detected speech so must carefully scrutinize any policy proposal that would restrict that speech. We need to strike a careful about protecting the public protecting innovation and protecting speech. Regulations rushed into law both innovation and constitutional responsibly. I am grateful we have the opportunity to discuss these issues today and hear from expert witnesses. Thank you very much, senator fisher. I want to introduce our witnesses. Our first witness is secretary of state steve simon. Secretary simon served as minnesotas chief elections administrators sixth 2015 and previously served in minnesota house of representatives and assistant attorney general. He earned a law degree from the university of minnesota and bachelors degree. After his last appointment by president h. W. Bush he appeared before the committee in 2021 so we invited him back again. And served as general counsel to my friend and former colleague senator john mccain, 2,002,008 president ial campaign Campaign Finance and law degree from university of virginia bachelors degree. Our third witness is riley, president and ceo of the leadership on civil and human rights. Ms. Riley is a professor and previously served as counsel to the mayor of new york city, and president ial solution. And with that, i will have senator fisher introduce the remaining two witnesses. Technology and innovation. Defamation law and coauthored, amicus briefs to state and federal courts across the country on vital First Amendment issues. The testimony shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. Be seated. Members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity. I am steve simon, the privilege of serving as editor of state. Im grateful for your willingness to engage on this important topic and i am honored to be here. Artificial intelligence is not a threat to american democracy in and of itself but it is an emerging powerful amplifier of existing threats. All of us who touch the elections process must be watchful and proactive especially as the 2024 president ial contest approaches. A year ago we were talking so much about generative a. I. The release of newly accessible tools such as chatgpt challenged all that and in the hands of those who worked to mislead a. I. Is a new and improved tool. Instead of communications with poor grammar, generative a. I. Can provide apparent position and clarity potential threat to the Administration Elections is real. We are talking old problem that can easily be provide. One possible danger could come from an innocent circumstance, a. I. Software might fail to grasp the nuances of statebystate. A scientist in minnesota named max made this in an article several months ago and asked chatgpt questions about minnesota election law and senator klobuchar said she did and the program gave the wrong answers to several questions. Was that intentional . Probably not. Still it is a danger to voters to make that information about critical election rules. In the wrong hands a. I. Could be used to misdirect intentionally and in ways that are far more advanced than ever. I remember seeing a paper leaflet from election about 20 or more years ago just to visit in a particular neighborhood that told residents in the coming election voting worker on tuesday conveying that misinformation in 2024 with the perpetrators could be domestic or foreign and the department of home and security word recently foreign adversaries me use a. I. To sharpen attacks on democracy. One last thing on potential consequences, the Center Recently identified a wires dividend from the use of a. I. The mere existence of a. I. Can lead to undeserved suspicion of messages that are true. A video that contradicts of the preconceived ideas may be simply dismissed as deep fake. The bottom line is misdirection in elections can cause destruction so if a. I. Misdirect, it can become an instrument of destruction so what can be done . In our office we are trying to be proactive. First, we are leading with truth, pushing out reliable Accurate Information while danica to miss and disinformation quickly second, weve been working with local and federal partners to monitor and respond to inaccuracies that could morph into conspiracy theories election related topics. Third, weve emphasized Media Literacy. National association of secretaries of state helped with trusted Sources Initiative urging americans to seek out sources of election information from secretaries of state and local election administrators. Fourth, cyber defenses are strong. Weve invested time and resources in fighting against intrusions that could create misleading information to voters. As for possible legislation, i believe federal approach would be helpful. The impacts of a. I. Will be held at the National Level so i applaud bipartisan efforts such as protect elections from the subject a. I. Act and real political ads act. Recently Minnesota Legislature enacted similar legislation with broad bipartisan support. There is a Critical Role for the private sector, two. Companies have to responsibly to make sure a. I. Products are secure and trustworthy. I support the first already underway to encourage adherence to basic and the living and on a note of some cautious optimism. A. I. Is a challenge, a big challenge but in some ways we have confronted some of the challenges with each technological sleep we have generally been able to manage potential disruptions to the way we receive and respond to information. The move to computerization, arrival of the internet, emergence of social media threatened to destabilize information pathways but in short order American People, smart, they adopted. Congress helped. A. I. May be qualitatively different but if we get better and if we continue to rely on trust searches for election information and congress can help, we can overcome many of the threats a. I. Poses while harnessing its benefits to efficiency productivity. Thank you for inviting me to testify and look forward to continued partnership. Thank you very much and appreciate it. Good afternoon and a key for the honor of appearing before you today to testify about Artificial Intelligence and elections. My testimony will focus on how Political Communications generated through a. I. Relate to the conduct of campaigns and why your regulation is urgently needed to address the impact of some aspects of this technology on our democracy. To summarize overarching concern, a. I. Tools can easily to design and spread fraudulent or deceptive Political Communications that infringe on voters fundamental right to make informed decisions at the ballot box. Every election cycle, billions of dollars are spent to create and distribute Political Communications. Before voters cast their ballots, they must go through these messages and decide what believe. Our Campaign Laws are intended to protect and assist voters requiring transparency about who is paying to influence their election choices and who is speaking to them. However, a. I. Could make voters test much more difficult because of its unprecedented ability to easily create realistic false content. Unchecked, deceptive use of a. I. Could make it virtually impossible to determine who truly speaking in political communication whether the message being communicated is authentic or whether something depicted actually happened. This could leave voters unable to meaningfully evaluate candidates and candidates unable to convey their desired message to voters undermining our democracy. It opens the door to malign even foreign actors to manipulate elections false information. Foreign adversaries may not favor specific candidates, they must seek to create chaos and so distressed in our elections thereby harming both parties in the whole country. I believe there are three concurrent paths to proactively addressing these risks. Three paths by the chair in her opening remarks. First, congress could strengthen the fec power to protect elections against fraud. Under current existing law, the fec can stop federal candidates and their campaigns from misrepresenting themselves speaking for another candidate or party on the matter which is damaging to that candidate and party. I believe the fec should explicitly clarify for the rulemaking process included in this prohibition. Then congress should expand any person for misrepresenting themselves as speaking for a candidate. Second, congress should pass a new law specifically prohibiting use of a. I. To engage in electoral fraud or manipulation. This would help protect voters from the most pernicious uses of a. I. While any regulation of Campaign Speech raises First Amendment concerns that must be addressed, let me say this. The government has a clear compelling interest in protecting and in addition voters have a well recognized person on it right participate in elections including the messages they see and know who the actual speaker is. There is no countervailing First Amendment right to intentionally defraud voters in elections so a narrow law prohibiting the use of a. I. To deceptively undermine elections to take speech would rest on firm constitutional putting. Third and finally, congress should expand existing Disclosure Requirements to ensure voters know when electoral content has been materially altered or falsified by a. I. This would ensure voters can treat content with appropriate skepticism. These are not mutually exclusive or exhaustive. Congress could decide to use a combination of tools while a single solution is unlikely to remain relevant for long. Congress should carefully consider how policy could be most effectively enforced with options including overhauling often gridlocked so fec enforcement process. New criminal penalties enforceable by the Justice Department and private right of action alone candidates targeted by deceptive a. I. To seek relief in federal court. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and look forward to your questions. Thank you very much. The rules committee is the only committee in which both senator schumer and mcconnell serve, this makes our jobs important so we are pleased senator schumer is here to give the opportunity to say a few words. Thank you and whatever committee you chair will always be important and same with senator fisher and i would like to congratulate you, you made it as a witness without being from minnesota. [laughter] anyway, thank you and i want to thank my colleagues for being here and as you know Artificial Intelligence reshaping life on earth in dramatic ways transforming our fight diseases and manage our lives and enrich our minds and sharp piece and much more that we cannot ignore dangerous for misinformation and new weapons and today i am pleased to talk about a more immediate problem, a. I. Could be used to totally discredit elections and make no mistake, the risks of a. I. Is not just an issue for democrats or republicans, everyone of us would be impacted. Demands a response from all of us and thats why i firmly believe any effort by congress to address a. I. Must be bipartisan and i can think of few issues that could unite both parties faster and safeguard our democracy. We dont need to look hard to see how a. I. Can work democratic systems this year and we have seen instances of deep faith and misinformation. Reach the voters. Text to voice to partners and depicted in a negative light. Already deployed in massive scale to target millions of individual voters political persuasion influence damaging information is sent to 100 million homes, his heart, oftentimes impossible to put the genie back in the bottle but once the low. As americans prepare to go to the polls in 2024, we have to move quickly to establish safeguards. Related misinformation and congress to legislate on a. I. Protect our elections from the forms of a. I. And thank you again for organizing this on a. I. To central, the need for action. To host forms that focus on issues like a. I. And democracy and the rules committee and other committee and i look forward to working with both underscore which are in fisher and the rules committee members, thank you for being here and develop bipartisan decision and the responsibility for protecting our elections will be congress alone. The administration should continue leveraging the tools we have provided private Companies Must their part and issue their own safeguards used in the political arena. The administration and private sector working together to protect our democracy and robust transparency and safeguards and the provision of our founders in the 21st century so thank you again to the members of the committee and look forward to looking at legislation able to pass the Electoral Reform bill near unanimous support and brought it over the finish line so we hope to have the same of these proposals and thank you for your leadership and willingness to look across the aisle. Good afternoon. Brooklyn to be specific. [laughter] all the members of this esteemed committee, it is a great honor to be before you. I want to correct the record because i am no longer on the faculty i have joined the university of district Columbia School of law. I am going to breathe because so much of whats been said i agree with but to elevate three primary points critical to remember and i hope we discussed more deeply today and in the future, one is we know misinformation is not and it predates Artificial Intelligence and that is why we should deepen our concern and need Government Action because as said, we have witnessed growth in the last two election cycles, Artificial Intelligence is expanding opportunity in the depths of not only disinformation in the sense of elevating also is about where people vote and whether they can go, how to vote goes directly to the ability of voters of candidates of choice and exercise their franchise lawfully and disproportionally targets communities of color. Even noting that looking at russian interference in the 2016 election Africanamerican Community was disproportionally targeted by that disinformation but the tolls we are seeing in the generative sense, deep fake being utilized by Political Action committees and parties and something that is in our election cycle and we must Pay Attention whether or not they have this information about what is and is not accurate, what a candidate did or did not say and in addition to the other things weve talked about but i want to talk about the condition in which we consider this conversation about Artificial Intelligence and election integrity. We only have a democracy if we have trust in our election system and of big part of the narrative driving disinformation is the narrative that our elections are not trustworthy and its something we continue to see increased. We have watched as social media platforms turned back from policies to ensure public squares private companies are adhering to user agreements in ways that ensure everyone online is safe from harassment but also clear what is or is not actual information. We cannot rely on social Media Companies to do the on their own. We have been spending our time focused on trying to get social Media Companies to improve policies as well as ensure they are policing them fairly, equally in regard to communities targeted. I can tell you what you have seen and news reports and we have seen getting of staffing that produced the ability so we are very much in favor of the process we are able to participate but also almost be recognized both how people are targeted, who is targeted and increasing violence is documented and we are seeing an increase and we are at risk but can regulate Artificial Intelligence and insurance oversight of what social Media Companies are doing and whether they are complying with their own policies ensuring they help to keep us safe. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for inviting me to discuss the influence of Artificial Intelligence. Imagine a world where our most valuable resource is abundant to a degree we have never seen for education, art and scientific innovation are supercharged by tools the argument our cognitive ability and high fidelity political speech can be created and realtime Fact Checking for education or the norm. It seems possible to me but if you take one message, it should be this. Artificial intelligence is not emerging, it is here and has been for years. A. I. Technologies are entangled and its not just about futuristic fix, is the foundational technologies he we use to craft discourse today. Lets blow it political at. Today an ad Campaign Director doesnt just brainstorm ideas over coffee. She uses check tbt for variations on her core message. When her we get team gathers information, its a breeze to sift through images photographers cameras you a. I. And and just to capture images from the lens attached. A. I. Powered facial protection ensures subjects remained focused. Apples iphone 15 takes it to the next level and dedicated photography, its no exaggeration to say every photo on an iphone 15 will be generated in part by a. I. A. I. Powers production. Speech recognition does text based video and software automatically joins multiple video streams into polished final product. Blemishes disappear, the hounds are beautified because of a. I. And tools make it possible to adapt audio and video of a final add into an entirely different language seamlessly. These are some of the tools involved in creating content now. Some are new but many sub been here for years. A. I. Is so intricately woven into modern content creation determining whether particular at difficult. I suspect each center here used a. I. Content in their camping knowingly or not. That is why it matters. Because a. I. Is so pervasive, requiring a. I. Content disclosures could affect all campaign ads. Check the box disclosures will aid transparency, only clutter political messages. To address the unique problem, a. I. Will facilitate more political speech but theres no reason to think it will shift a ratio of truth to deception. Historically wishes actors to use it. Selective editing, overseas content and photoshop are inexpensive and effective enough, distribution, not content generation is a bottleneck for misinformation campaign. Many his time spent creating content is money and time. This committee should continue to investigate what new problems a. I. Raises and could review effects on past elections and should closely monitor the effects of coming election cycle. More broadly congress should establish a permanent central hub of expertise on a. I. To advise agencies dealing with a. I. Related issues. A. I. Is here now affecting and improving committee getting persuading and engaging. Legislative approaches with political speech today and prevent the promise of work engaging political dialogue. Thank you for your attention. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. This highlights a measure of agreement between us here. Pauls speech that misleads people on the electoral process, mechanics where to vote, how to register to vote. Those statements are particularly damaging and the government in preventing specific process firms is where the governments interest is most compelling but a fundamental prerequisite democratic selfgovernment is free discourse especially political affairs. Protection for core political speech and fullest most urgent application during a campaign for political and even pauls speech protected by the First Amendment in the determination of truth and falsity and politics is remaining with the border and to avoid unjustified intrusion to the right and duty and it requires us to ask a few questions. We are not standing here today on the precipice of calamity. A. I. Presents incremental change in how we communicate. Deceptively playing a role in modern a. I. Technology, there is no evidence a. I. Has a unique threat despite these warnings, while the technology has become marginally better and more available, there is no indication deep face pose a risk in changing their coding. One study found they are not credible relative to non a. I. Media. A current election cycle appears to back this up even if not labeled. A. I. Generated media has been identified and subject to scrutiny and ridicule. The second question is whether it narrowly favored. It is difficult to track regulation specifically a. I. Its inherently underinclusive failing to regulate not utilizing a. I. It not only poses the same threat but also a long history of the speculative fears about a. I. The law prohibiting a. I. Generated political speech would be an enormous amount of human values discourse. Much like media to create the impression, a. I. Generated this position and highlight between two candidates in the ultimate just conveyed through falsity. Particularly in the political content beyond the First Amendment allows it even more limiting the use of political a. I. Generated broadly by any one at any time how the risk of harm not tailored against any harms the government has. The third question is whether it is an alternative. The government must choose the least restrictive. Hopefully the same study revealing a. I. Points to less restrictive alternative. Digital literacy and political knowledge uniformly increased discernment when it comes to this. Congress can focus on this incident and acting. Another fundamental alternative is available. An over a decade rarely encountered a scenario and could not serve a Counter Measure and i dont think i find myself in this position today. Nowhere is the importance of potential or efficacy of public speech more important in this political campaign. That is the basis of our democracy and we can expect more and should not presume voters will be asleep at the wheel. Multiply your of the bogeyman law basically and uncluttered discourse in our democracy. If we sacrifice fundamental liberties and use that intrude wisdom corkboard speech is true or better speech no will save our institution, the already be cost. Thank you for the opportunity like today. Inca. Im going to turn it over in the interest of time here. I want to ask one question and then i will come back. I want to make sure you agree there is risk posed by a. I. To deceive voters and undermine electives. Do you all agree with that . Do you believe we should work to shore guardrails arent . I will turn it over to senator merkley needs. Thank you so much, this is such an important issue. I was struck by a conversation i had, how do we know whats real and political discourse . One thing is go to trusted sources and now we are talking profoundly misrepresented. Currently its not uncommon to distort think it worked and flirt a week tweaked a little, is there anything about that right now is a violation of federal election law . No its not and what is the visual component and all, is not in violation . Its not a violation of law wait a minute, if have a candidate misrepresenting what their opponent said under current fcc rules if the candidate did it themselves misrepresenting the speaker than it possibly could be. True, its violation . I think that would not be a violation, the mischaracterization if you create a quote and put it in the mouth of your opponent, those words are inaccurate and they will look at it and say is that a misrepresentation of the other candidate . Would be a deliberate creation of something the opponent had not said opposed to the candidates opinion. A completely falsified digital image of the opponent than that would be illegal under law . I think it would and thats what i urged my testimony to make clear the candidate creates a false image of his Artificial Intelligence is what would you dont not what violate existing law. You talked about wednesday and i picture now with modern technology having the message the Community Leader identified as ever and barack obama on the line. Thanks for the question. I am hung up on a couple of details of minnesota law. I dont know if it came up in the federal context from i would say arguably yes it would be, maybe not election law but other forms of law. I recognize some uncertainty in part of why this important hearing, we think about this elaboration. You said fakes are not edible, theres a 2020 study and much has been spent. Im not sure why the deep fake is well done and somehow not credible when studies have shown mass majority has seen them and says i cant believe that. Particularly so they can test whether or not misogyny found in terms of identifying whether something is deep fake or not, its not really more likely moved by fake or another a. I. Generated function. My overall impression is the use of deep fakes and campaigns or thirdparty can be powerful and what soandso said because your eyes see the real person so i am pleased we are holding this hearing and i appreciate your testimony. Thank you very much. Senator fisher. You mentioned a. I. Tools are, in the distribution, can you talk about Practical Implications why they would severely restrict the use of a. I. Or require broad disclosure . Thank you for the question. Requiring disclosure would be a lot of advertising content. Imagine you are a lawyer advising a candidate on an as they want to run. Having a. I. Generated content in the ad means the act cant be run or it has to have a disclosure, the lawyer is going to try to figure out whether or not there is a. I. Generated content and that and as i pointed out in my testimony, that is very broad category. I know we use the term state but the light between vacant tweaks to make somebody slightly younger in their ad is pretty blurry and doing outline in legislation is difficult so in at campaigns as a lawyer advising the candidate, you will tend to be conservative especially if it is potential private defamation lawsuit with damages where defamation is. I think if the consequences are high, boilers will be conservative. It could add to increased cost of elections. Increased costs and adds for you meet the requirements in and at a time when you spend there. Increased cost is less effective crowding out the messaging and creates a barrier. You advocated to prevent election interference that judges are comes instead of regulating tools. Part of the issue with a lot of concern about deceptive content overall, the question is why are we limiting this to only a. I. Generated content . When i say outcome neutral test based on the things were worried about, i would encourage looking at the concern with a certain outcome lets focus on the outcome. I understand advertisements require at least one disclaimer compelled disclaimers could infringe on personal rights. Violate the First Amendment rights. I think our two things to talk about. First, the government still has to have a constitutionally conditioned interest and when it comes to disclaimers and disclosures, the information interest is identification of the speaker, who is talking to us giving us the path and determine whether we credit the less skepticism. Its one thing to forget that interest and can make a difference in the message the ties into the second problem which is affecting using a. I. The interest in aching people a little more circumspect about what they believe that creates the same problem. If everything has a disclosure, nothing has disclosure that actors to put advertisements out and it will be just as justice skeptical because everything has have a disclosure. It would further government interest in messages much more narrowly drawn. The a. I. Generated images can you tell us the standards used to regulate speech and other content . Thats a great question because who knows but generally speaking the harder standard to impose on talking about Something Like little speech, it is closely with materiality, any particular voter, how does the reasonable standard person correspond with Digital Literacy of a particular person, a result person of High Education level may be much less likely to have a different view with edison material than the original version. A lower education level might be more susceptible to it. It really defies reasonable standard particularly with sensitive important speech. Thank you, madam chair. Senator warner, the chair of the Intel Committee and esteemed members. I was at the hearing on the prc of the misinformation and not going to debate will completely disagree and would love to get the briefings we receive. Appreciate the fact that you have taken the lead on a. I. Regulations around elections. If i think about the exponentially greater power of a. I. , misinformation, disinformation is childs play in terms of the interference tools now. I think it would be naive to underestimate that in a different magnitude. I think if we look at this, where are existing a. I. Tools right now . Where can have the most immediate effects that could have huge negative consequences . I think public trust is the key to keep it together. You identified one in public election and we have seen public trust eroded using tools in 2016 and the fec required the fact that your legislation and equalize. And the mistake. And the other institution reliant on public collections we can have, the same stating a fact that public market. There is one example so far where the false depiction have a disruption in the market and the level of what would take place in fortune 100 to 500 Companies Including not just simply deep fakes but generally tools with massive information about products across the area. I welcome my colleagues to look at the tools already being deployed using a. I. Read this notion that there is law, there are plenty of examples where because the harm is potentially so great we have decided higher penalty level or lower threshold is more extinct and arm is so great think twice as a society. Murder is murder. In society and different level of heinousness of that. We have lots of tools and we have decided there may be some tools of war and it goes beyond and i think it would be naive to make the assumption that the potential a. I. Had that we shouldnt at least consider if these cooler on leash, we are starting to drill down this issue of public collections and First Amendment rights respected and might be easier on Public Markets and can easily see massive a. I. Tools being used to disrupt Public Markets thats usually catastrophic that might overreact. And one thing we found in the 2016 election disproportionately targeting the community. We just came from the hearing for the prcs current influence operations, some using a. I. Tools and some not. Thirtythree50 of all people took it to be accurate. What they found is increased exposure actually deepened the problem. The notion that you see it over and over again from different sources can deepened the belief. I am saying that because part of what we are seeing is we certainly include them but also domesticate groups. Utilizing the opportunity and we are starting to have a lot of concerns about some of the Way Technology particularly with tech bots can increase exponentially the reach. They are more easily made afraid or given false information about where to vote. I want to make this clear, too. Seeing a lot with people. They have been targeted specific standards. We know that there is real targeting of communities with color. It does go to the way of Political Parties and political advertising the attack on the integrity of our election system and whether voters are voting lawfully or fraudulently and making people more vulnerable to violence. Very good. I know that the senator was here early. Senator haggerty. Good to be with you both. I would like to start with you. If i could just engage in a thought experience with you for a few minutes. Lets go back to 2020. The covid pandemic kids. Many policymakers, experts advocating for things like mass mandates, shutting down schools, going to mandatory learning, that type of thing. Many localities, many states adopted mandates of that nature out the offset. I think that we know the results of those mandates. Great economic damage specifically for Small Businesses children learning setbacks considerable loss of liberty. What im concerned about is they may be finding themselves right at the same place again. I do not want us to make the same mistakes. I would like to start with a very basic question. It is Artificial Intelligence a term with an agreedupon Legal Definition . It does not have a agreedupon technical definition many of the computer scientists are trained on this. They describe four different categories of definitions and underneath those there are many different types. If you run through the list of things that have been considered ai in the past and in which nobody really calls ai now you have everything from edge detection to letter detection to playing chess, playing checkers. A classic phrase coining the term ai. It is quite difficult. Thinking about ai and ai tools. Using it for ai functions like taking and editing pictures. Absolutely. Ads are created using many different algorithms. This device here has many different ai algorithms on it. I would like to use this scenario to illustrate my concern. I would like to introduce this article. You are allowed in the record prohibited to using deceptive ai generated ai video with visual media. This would include an image in a way that makes it an authentic or inaccurate. That is pretty big content. Age may be a very relevant factor. This is one of them right here. Describing how president bidens experience is being altered and photographs to make them look younger. My next question is the Biden Campaign were to use Photo Editing Software that utilizes ai to make joe biden look younger in the picture on his website, did that use potentially violate such a law against inaccurate or inauthentic images . I believe it could. The question should be why does that, the use of those tools violate it and not use of makeup and use of lighting in order to make somebody look younger . Is there risk in your view of variance or in the rapidly growing concept like ai may actually kill political speech. Absolutely. My concern, to. My point is they should not engage in heavyhanded regulation with these impacts. We should not immediately indulge the impulse to just do something before we fully understand the impacts of the emerging to analogy especially when that encroaches on clinical speech. There specific issues. My concern is the solution needs to be thoughtful and not tasty. Thank you. Thank you very much, senator. I will start with you, senator simon. Im sorry, secretary of state simon and get some of the questions that senator haggerty was raising. Just first, all my colleagues are here and i have not answered questions yet. What state has consistently had the highest voter turnout of all the states in america . Okay. Thank you very much. And a soda. Especially because senator bennett is here and he is always in a close race with me for colorado. I thought that i would put that on the record. Senator haggerty has raised some issues. I wanted to get what we are doing here with the bill that senator holly, certainly not a member of the biden administration, senator holly and i have introduced with senator collins and senator rickett, senator bennett has been such a leader on this. Senator cruz and others will be getting on it as well. So, this bill gets at not just any cosmetic changes, this gets out materially deceptive ads. This gets at the fake ad showing donald trump hugging doctor fauci which was a lie. That is what i get that. It gets at the person that looks like Elizabeth Warren but is not Elizabeth Warren claiming that republicans should not be allowed to gloat. It is a grave concern for people on both sides of the aisle. Can you talk about and help us with this kind of materially deceptive content having no place in our elections. Thank you, senator, for the question. I think that that is the key. Of course it is well he looked to use that task in terms of drawing lines. I dont pretend to say and i think the senator is correct and right to point out that it is difficult. Congress in any legislative body needs to get it right. Fill the line drawing exercise may be difficult. Courts are equal to a draw that line. The new reality clearly in the way of elections is not so different from other realms of our national life. It is true what others have said political speech, the bar for a little go speech is rightfully high. It is and it should be. In some sense, no different if someone were to Say Something false in the healthcare field. If someone said something just totally false, a false positive or negative attribute if someone said recommend cure cancer or breath mints cause cancer or Something Like that, i dont think we have quite the same presentation. Political speech of course there is a high bar. Courts, given the right language could navigate through that. I will turn to mr. Potter, but i know even in a recent Supreme Court decision by Justice Barrett, seventwo decision, the Supreme Court was joined by Justice Barrett dear justices Robert Thomas alito stated that the First Amendment does not shield fraud. So, the point is that we are getting at a very specific subset. Not what mr. Cohen was talking about with the broad use of some of the technology that we have all political ads. You would be a good person to talk to. You were a republican appointee chair of the fcc. Can you expand on well prohibiting materially deceptive ai content in our election falls squarely within the framework of the constitution. Thank you, madam chair. The court has repeatedly said that it is constitutional to require certain disclosures so that voters have information about who is speaking and they are, i think Justice Kennedy and Citizens United was very clear in saying that voters need to know who is speaking to put it into context. So, who the speaker is and forms of voters decision as to believe them or not. In those circumstances where we are talking about disclosure, it seems to be particularly urgent to have voters know that the person who was allegedly speaking is fake. That the person who they think is speaking to them or doing an act is actually not that person. So there it is the negative of, yes, who was paying for the ad. Is that the speaker actually the speaker . That would fit within the disclosure framework. In terms of the prevention of fraud, i think that goes to the fact that the court has always recognized that the integrity of our election system and citizen faith in that system is what makes this democracy work. And, so, to have a circumstance where we could have the deep fake and somebody is being alleged to Say Something they never said or engage in an act where they never did and is highly likely to create distrust where you have a situation where that occurs, the comment has been made, well, the solution is just more speech. But, i think that we all know, and there is Research Showing this, but we intuitively know i saw with my own eyes is a very strong perspective. And to see somebody, hear them engaging in surreptitiously recorded racist and misogynist comments and then have the candidate whose words and image have been portrayed say that is not me, i did not say that, that is all fake. Are you going to believe what you saw or a candidate to says that is not me. Thank you for doing that. Also in neutral firms. It could happen on either side and while we are working so hard to try to get this done. I would also add in this was all the disclosure, and 2010, for my part i do not look or to a society. Hidden from public scrutiny and protected from accountability of criticism that does not resemble the home of the brave. There has been a clear indication on why senator holly and collinson senator bennett and the number of the rest of us drafted a bill that had the ability to look at this in a very narrow fashion, but also allow for satire and the like. I did not find some of your point, i am looking to turn it over here. Interesting. Getting beyond the ones that would be banned, which once the disclaimer apply to. We may want to look at that in a careful way so that we do not have every additive becomes meaningless, as you said. I really did appreciate those comments. With that, i am going to i think and then we go to the senator that has been here for quite a while. Senator bennett and then the other senate even though it does represent the largest state in our nation it and former secretary of state. Hopefully that order will work. If you need to trade among each other, please do. Thank you. Thank you, madam chair. I think you just got to the root of the matter very efficiently and elegantly. Mr. Cohen, appreciate your comments. I think the matter that is being discussed here is not subjective complex judgments about subtle mischaracterization in public discourse. We are talking about, for example, senator fisher, one of your political adversaries will fully, knowingly and with extreme realism falsely depicting you or any of us for a candidate challenging us making statements that we never made in a way that is indistinguishable to the tumor of the media to a realistic documentation of our speech. That is the most significant threat that we are talking about here. Mr. Potter, in your opinion, is there a compelling Public Interest in ensuring that that kind of knowing, knowingly and willfully deceptive, and whose purpose to get is not to express an opinion, not to caricature but to deceive the public about statements made by candidates for office. A compelling interest regulating that. Absolutely there is. The court would recognize that compelling interest. There is no argument that there is a compelling interest in fraudulent speech. As the chair noted. I think what you would find here is in a circumstance where we are talking about this sort of deep faith as opposed to the conversations about did you use a computer to create the text, but where you are creating a completely false image i think we would have a compelling Public Interest and no countervailing private interests the First Amendment goes to my right, our right, to say what we think. Even about the government and in campaigns without being penalized. But the whole point of this conversation is, you are falsifying the speaker. It is not what i think. My First Amendment right. It is creating this fake speech where the speaker never actually said it. So, that i think is where the court will come down and say, creating that is not a First Amendment right. Indeed as you point out there is substantial jurors prudence that would support the regulation of speech in this extreme case with knowing and willfully deceptive fabrication of statements made by candidates throughout the republican figures. I think the distinction that i draw is that the rent has protected a candidate saying i think this even if it is false or, my opponent supports or opposes abortion rights. That may be of mischaracterization. It may be deceptive. But it is what i am saying engaging in my First Amendment speech mischaracterizing an opponent speech is in the giveandtake. It is something that we are talking about here where you have an image or voice being created where it is saying something you never said. It is not me characterizing it, it is putting it in the image. Hankey. Giving you the chance to respond is it your position that broadcast advertising which knowingly and locally mischaracterized candidates for office. I do not mean to mischaracterize it or give shaded opinions about what they believe stand for or it may have said in the past. Depict them saying things they never said for the purpose of misleading the public about what they said. Is it your information that that should be protected speech . Thanks for the question, senator. First of all, it is one thing to say the word fraud. They generally require reliance and damages. So, stripping those requirements out of fear, effectively presuming them takes us well outside of the conceptualization of fraud that we know. I do think that there are circumstances in which i think i would agree with you on which things crossed the line. Keep in mind, two examples, first in 2012, the Romney Campaign cut some infamous lines out of president obamas speech. You did not build it. It made it seemed like he was denigrating the hard work of the owners. But instead, she was actually referring to the infrastructure that supported those businesses. In his last election, the Biting Campaign was accused of cutting out about night teen sentences are so for President Trump Campaign Rally that made it sound like he was calling covid19 a hoax. My point is not that these are good or valuable and that we need people, this is already a problem. By trying to legislate them with ai specifically instead of addressing the broader effect. It causes a constitutional concern. It is not actually being invested. You agree broadly speaking that certain forms of deceptive advertising in the political arena are subject to regulation that theres a compelling Public Interest in compelling knowing deception such as putting words in senator fishers mouth it a highly realistic way, your argument is that the question is not the Technology Used to do so the question is materiality, the nature of the speech itself. Is that your position . I think drawing the statute narrowly enough is an exceedingly difficult task. I think in principle is a pieinthesky concept i think that i agree with you, i am just not sure how to get from point a to be in a matter that will satisfy strict scrutiny. Forgive me for invoking your example. Thank you for your testimony. Very good. Thank you. While network tvs have some requirements and they take ads down when they find them highly deceptive, that will not happen online. That is one of our problems here we feel like we have to activate clear that they have the power to act as well. Otherwise, we will have the wild west on the platform spirit a lot of people getting the news. Senator welch. Thank you. Kind of following up on that, nobody wants to be censoring tiered so i get that. What that line is very porous. But, the example that the senator just gave about political speech, it was a flat out broad whether it was ai generated, it was used with older technologies of broadcast. You guys agree that there should be a remedy for that . Well, thank you, senator. Im not sure we can define it exclusively as. What im hearing you say is it is really, really difficult to define, which i think it is, but your conclusion is we cannot do anything. The issue with ai is not just ai , it is the implication of the deception. You know, something happened to senator fisher so toxic to trust in the political system and that is getting out of control as it is. How do we find that line between where your, doing something is totally false versus a very broad definition of political speech. One other thing i want to ask. There has to be some expectation that the platforms, say google take some sort of responsibility for what is on the platform. They have been laying off the folks whose job it is to monitor this and judge what is a flat out deception. So, how do we deal with this. What is your observation about the platforms like twitter, now x, google, facebook, essentially laying off all the folks job whose it was within the organization to be reviewing this material that is so dangerous for democracy. Let me start with the first one. What you are hearing is it is important to have a carefully crafted narrow important statute to withstand Supreme Court scrutiny. But also to work. And, so, the language that gets used is going to be the key question. We all agree on that. But there is a real apprehension i do not know who will drop the statute. I dont know who let all of you do that, but it is a real problem. What about the platforms laying people off so we dont need to get realtime information. The deceitful advertising is out there. And we dont even know it. We cannot better verify whether it is false. One more light on your first question. I think the comment, the example cited by mr. Cohen in terms of snippets being taken from a romney speech or snippets from a trump speech and then mischaracterized, that, to me, falls along the line of defensible permissible political speech that falls into the arena where we argue with each other over whether it was right or wrong because in his example, those people actually said that the it was their words. They are interpreting them or misinterpreting them, but they said it. That is where you draw the line. You are creating word they did not say. The technology weve heard about where my testimony today because ive been talking enough can be put into a computer and my voice pattern can be used and it can create an entirely different thing where i sat here and said this is ridiculous you should not be holding this hearing and you cannot regulate any of this. Is there any problem banning that . Why would that be legitimate and any campaign . So, rearranging someones speech to Say Something truthful even if it is a misrepresentation, i dont think you could man that. If i had your recording of this speech. We are talking about using whatever technology to have somebody, me, saying something i never said in place of something i never met. Yes. Sorry. Thank you. So, i think that it would really depends. You could have somebody said something they did not say. Maybe it makes you look good. It is not defamatory in any way, it is truthful and positive on the. It would be hard to draw a line that would ban one of those. Okay. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you for the bill that you have allowed me to cosponsor as well. I think that it is a good start in this area. Thank you to the witnesses for being here. Not everybody up here, i think everybody on this panel is grappling with the newness of ai this information itself of course is not something that is new. This will be a question for you once i get through it. It was common in the 20th century for observers of journalism or maybe journalists themselves to say that if it leads it leads. And digital platforms which have in many cases, i think tragically replaced traditional news media have turned this maximum into the center of their business model, creating algorithms that are stoked by outrage. Humans and children in particular. Others to their platforms to sell advertising to generate profit. That has been, has found its way into our political system. In 2016, foreign autocrats extorted the platforms algorithms to undermine American Trust in our institutions and elections and each other. As a member of the intelligence committee, i remember just being horrified by not just the russian attack on our elections, but also the fact it took them forever to be vented that it happened. That they had sold ads to russian that were then used to anonymously attack our election and spread false goods into our democracy. In 2017, you know, basically the algorithms plagued with United Nations described as a determining role in the genocide facebook said we lose some sleep over this. That was their response. Clearly not enough sleep in my deal. Will at least two dozen innocents were killed including a 65yearold who was beaten and just last night the Washington Post reported by the way, these are the medicals, hes actually appropriate flashpoint Washington Post reported Political Parties with tens of thousands misinformation and inflammatory religious content and while there is galvanized on our neighbors near homes claiming this is the weapon tested by the united states. They included what appeared to be a i generated and big tech allowed pauls content course most of the good no and it will literally did, listening to them talk about these algorithms. Another subject of todays hearing, our inability to deal with this, im a lawyer, i believe strongly in this and critical part of our democracy and journalism and politics we have to find a way to protect it. It cant be an excuse and all things, these are foreign actors undermining our elections and the attached that we are going to kill of the First Amendment and the defense will cant be answered. We have to have a debate about to be sure we need to write legislation that does not or unconstitutionally. And we cant go through another decade like last. Im almost out of time the last second to have, could you discuss the home disinformation has played level with traditional social media platforms as well as the new a. I. Models we are talking about and im sorry to leave you little time. We have been working what we have seen when social media has policies in place prohibiting conflict which they are constitutionally allowed to do to say you cant come with hate speech and disinformation demoting it or leaving it or taking off the platform for the worst offenders. What we have seen is sadly and frankly, not consistent enforcement of those policies and most recently pulling back from those policies enabling not only a safe space for been doubled the rate of eight euros on youtube double so it is significant in terms of telling the they cant vote for sending them to the wrong place but even worse because we saw two of them went viral out of georgia that gets to arizona and elected officials rollout vigilantes to go drop boxes that essentially intimidate voters dropping off their ballot. My colleague from california is waiting. One observation is an important piece, the russians were telling the russian government telling the American People they couldnt go is what youre saying, itll have First Amendment right to do that and we need to stop the connection for your patience and great leadership. Thank you, madam chair. Want to associate myself with concerns raised by various members of the committee today and having a complete comprehension and leader schumer and others have considered minimize the risk and potential upside and benefits and across the board and share the concerns and the question to the potential benefit of a. I. In one example is the identification and disinformation and super spreaders and other actors responsible for the information. And it is familiar with talking about. In the enforcement regulation, one example, political ads that use synthetic content for disclosure will its really easy to and this. Question, other books example in and for this . The language is translated into and it translates just audio but also image so it looks like the person is speaking in the language. That type of will to quickly reach an audience that maybe was harder to reach for the campaign before especially if you dont have resources, thats a powerful potential tool. One that could benefit election workers Media Literacy and toolkits that could be branded, if you think would be helpful to have resources from the federal level . We in the Community Miss you but glad youre here as well. It really does matter and trusted Sources Initiative secretaries of state the more we can do to channel people however they may define that. Someone may think it is a county or city or someone else and that would be quite helpful. We cant come back disinformation, any other form where it comes from and impacts our election so want to emphasize that these and tracking this information to help Democratic Institutions about it but these organizations are facing a calculated Legal Campaign from the far right under the guise of censorship hold research to highlight disinformation. One example Partnership Led by stanford by observatory form public tracking and analyzing the space and studies about actors can manipulative the information. Previously guard against hoaxes and information on the platform. What impact disinformation researchers have. We are saying the Chilling Effect takes effect meaning we are researching changing how and one thing share cant believe and First Amendment and it is distant learning and importance of thinking fully disseminates law is nothing more important panic information of how to write it and theres another indication from our education in particular has had a devastating impact on our ability to understand what we research and learn about. I want to thank senator fisher and members of the committee for the and thank you for sharing your testimony is distant emerging Technology Going in deep about potential solutions and what would work and i appreciate every it is acknowledged the risk to democracy and every witness acknowledged we need to work on guardrails and while we know who have to be thoughtful, i would flesh the election is upon us so not ask people watching were within different candidates or different sides that we put guardrails in place. I think giving Clear Authority will be helpful doing the van for the most extreme fraud will be important and i am glad to have a number of senators sitting incentives and figuring out lemurs set work and that is the most eyeopening thing about which things we should do so the abilities that we are concerned about to take this stuff down in these voices. Clearly the importance of congressional action i look forward to working with my colleagues on this committee on a bipartisan manner in the hardest of circumstances including not just the electoral count act through this committee but also security changes needed and senator peterson important at the time in the Homeland Security committee and a list of recommendations and ranking number at the time and the two leaders with bipartisan support and we have a history of doing things on a bipartisan basis. Right now for the senate to take the lead hopefully before the end of the year. We look forward to working on this as soon as possible. The record will remain open for a week. We hope the sun is not shut down and we will find a way to get your seat and if it is, we are hopeful given the 80 of the senate on this bill last night senator schumer put together. We go from there in that spirit and this committee is adjourned. The pool will. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [background noises] [background noises] seasons student kim competition is back celebrating 20 years looking forward while considering the past middle and High School Students to create a five to six minute video addressing one of these questions. In the next 20 years was the most important change loss the past few years . Was the most important thing in america . We are giving 100,000 in prizes. Nuy 19 for more information visit our site at student kim the org. Cspan is your unfiltered view of government funded by these Television Companies. You think its just the Community Center . Its way more than that. 1000 wifi enabled families get the tools they need ready for anything. As a Public Service along with the other Television Providers giving you a front row he to democracy. Clement democratic candidate marionemain committed to nursing of the. Healthcare and
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.