that's not an endorsement that any republican speaker should ever want or embrace and this vote will be called next week and i just want to urge all of our colleagues to prepare for it. it's the right thing to do for america, it's time to clean house and get our conference in order and get ready to support president trump's agenda, god willing he wins in november and we take back full power here in january. thank you very much, everyone. >> republican representatives greene and thomas massie speaking about their efforts to have mike johnson removed as house speaker after hakeem jeffries announced yesterday that democrats would help block any motion to vacate the speaker's chair. you can follow the action on the floor of the house on c-span when members return, here on c-span2, we take you back to the ai hearing in progress. >> we have a common-law in minnesota, this state, the state talked about a few of you if you want to, just this need

to have this national standard, why it's so important. >> if i could-- >> i just want to comment on some things from before, which is as someone who grew up without the first amendment i value it more than those who have, i do not take it for granted at all. it seems like it's well and alive in america because half of the movies nominated for oscars were based on, you know, existing folks. so saying that any, you know, ai regulation that is respectful of the existing first amendment is not reduing it, it's keeping it as it is. and it's alive and well. so, i do think that we need to stay within the limits of first amendment and not go beyond. as to national regulation, we work with global platforms. we're talking about global platforms, not even national.

we're talking global platforms, do anything state by state is a very cumbersome process. to exist content and getting on a platform unauthorized if we have to fight that on state by state, it's untenable. it just doesn't work. >> very good. >> mr. davies, that will be my last one and then go ahead. >> i need to reinforce what was said. you're absolutely right. it's global, the success of this is having access to music from the u.k. or from tennessee or wherever, so, it's high volume, and anything that adds complexity on the state by state level is anathema to this industry so we're very strong in favor of preemption. >> very good. the last thing kind of along those lines, don't laugh -- just very fast and put it in writing, mr. davies. in general we heard testimony

that generative ai has been used to make news anchors making comments and i have a vested interest, my dad was a journalist for the minneapolis star tribune, but also senator kennedy and i have a bill to put for negotiation of the content and to get them reimbursed mainly from google and facebook for the use of this, something that's gone on in australia and canada and i will not go on. but what steps can streaming services take to assure there are not unauthorized replicas of journalists on the platform. >> senator, if i could follow up with you on that. >> excellent. thank you. >> thank you, senator klobuchar. and back to-- >> she had one. >> i'd like to go back to the

point, desire to make successful films about artists without consent. i think the problem is if you're able to use an artist's voice and likeness without content about their life story you're giving the impression that it's i guess the equivalent of an autobiography rather than a biography. if you're using this and this is what happened from my point of view and it's a team of writers in hollywood who want to dramatize things and that makes me feel uncomfortable and vulnerable. i don't think it's fair to even after an artist is deceased that somebody would be able to make a film about their life using them, you know? we can watch a film about

person in the past. and if it's an actor we know to take it with a pinch of salt. if it's the person themself, it feels too unclear and not fair and actually not in -- not in what am i trying to say, not the best intention of the artist's legacy. >> thank you. >> thank you. senator. >> thank you, mr. chair. i'm going to be brief. i did have a question for you, mr. crabtree. the current draft legislation the individuals only have the right for their digital likenesses if they hire an attorney or member of the organization. we have some feedback that your organization in particular that this is a giveaway. can you give me other examples in law? giveaways are really vectoring

everybody either into legal counselor to your union. can you give me other examples and law where you have to engage an attorney or a labor interest to move forward? >> sure, i guess i would say, i don't think it's just our union. it would be any collective bargaining representative, but there are a number of examples that occur in labor law, labor and employment law where there are defined worker protections that then can be deviated from a collective bargaining arrangement, but not through individual contracts. in this case, the proposal, i think, is a little broader, a little more open because of the option of securing individual representation by an attorney as an alternative. that's not normally present in those kinds of stat sheets, but i'm sure i could provide-- i can't give awe long list. >> a record that we're going to be submitting questions for the record for all of your-- provide an opportunity for information.

and i think it's remarkable when you look at the audience and engagement from the members it's hard pressed to see, on certain subjects, but technical subjects like this for members to go twice, a lot of interest. and twigs with my questions with you. i believe at that congress needs to act, but you need to understand that it's tough to get virtually anything done, even what appears to be common sense, for the reasons we've talked about. we're going to have constitutional questions we have to address. we have to get to a number of matters and hopefully we do get it done this year, but you were in your opening statement you were emotional or appeared to be emotional on one or two points and i'm just trying -- i think that people need to understand, i think, excuse me, one of the reasons maybe you got emotional is because this is n existential threat to

creators. i'm trying to figure out how we educate people on the difference between an original creation from a human being and something that was either created or augmented from a machine. and this is more of a societal thing that we have to sort out. at what point in society just prepared to say, boy, this sounds as good. i know it comes from a machine. it's not-- you mentioned something about the investment of europeans that they've made in you. how do you invest in a relationship with a machine? we're in an interesting point in time in history where we could have billions of people think the inauthentic creation of a machine is somehow as good as the hard work of a human being. i wonder at what point, when we lose all the creators, a philosophical creators, at what point can those machines never

possibly match the creativity genius of an individual? >> thank you. >> that's okay. makes no sense to me, but-- >> i think there are two things here. i feel incredibly lucky to have spent the whole of my teenage years without a smart phone, so i straddle a generation where i've memorized all of my friends numbers, i would walk to my friends house if we said we would meet at 1:00, i just would have to be there. there was no texting and saying i was going to be late. i loved my brain back then. i loved how simple it was, i loved what truth was back then. i loved i was able to think for myself. even where we're at with the internet now, it's so confusing, even if you just want to find a simple news story, we can't. even if you want to find the

truth whether a food is good for you or bad, we can't. it's a stream of nonsense. i look at a lot of my friends have children who are teenagers and their mental health is really struggling. we're looking at young people that have anxiety that have depression, because they're overwhelmed with information and lack of truth and lack of stability. and the thing that scares me is that my fans look at me, look to me for a north star, a message, a sense of being. my work is something that they can find themselves in and if you change the narrative of my work, we're just messing with their brains. you know, the -- like the solid essence of my work that i've spent so years developing, if someone can just take it and make up something completely different, i'd feel so bad because i'm harming people then and there would be nothing that i could do about it.

i think the way that we can prevent this from happening is putting the power in the hands of the artists, and also, putting the power in the hands of people that are there to protect the artists whether it's third parties like record labels, agents, lawyers, that's up to the artist to understand and to, you know, sign a contract, if we want to. you know, but i think that the way that i've been experimenting with deep fake is going to help my fans, it's going to help them understand the nuance of my language across all parts of the world, like the way that i want to use it is not harmful because i think inherently, artists just want to express their emotions, be there for people and say things that you can't say for yourself. so if you're putting words in our mouths, it's going to be devastating. >> well, i also agree.

i'm very glad there weren't cell phones back when i was a young person. [laughter] >> maybe for other reasons and -- but i do think that i'm glad that we're taking up this bill. i do feel feel strongly we should do everything we can to move it in it congress and if not, lean into it in the near future. but when we have the societal challenges and challenges of creators, we need to get it right. this technology, i love it, i interact with generative ai an hour every day and a study of it and began in the 1980's, artificial intelligence and work for me personally. congress has a role to play, we have to be very careful not to overstep and not to trample the rights of others. we need your help and engagement to get it right and thank you all for being here

today. >> senator tillis, thank you again for being a great partner. i have more questions, but we have come to the end of our time and you and senator blackburn have been terrific to work with. i am grateful to all of our witnesses that you've brought your skills, your value, your background, your creativity, your voice to this hearing today. we've engaged in a lot of different challenging questions how we could refine this, how we could narrow it. there have been a lot of members who participated. for those who have not participated or who still have other questions, the record will be open for questions for the record for the witnesses, they're due one week from today by 5 p.m. on may 7th. although, twigs, in your case, two weeks, before we wrap this up in cellophane and move forward. if i could, today's hearing is important to show when we regulate the use of ai we have to balance individual privacy rights and first amendment

rights in a way that doesn't stifle creativity and innovation with these rapidly developing ai tools. it reinforces what we've heard today and why we need a clear policy to protect image, voice and likeness of all individuals from unauthorized ai replicas and the feedback at that we've heard and the staff that we've received is critical. and i look forward to working with my colleagues and co-sponsors and the witnesses and others who attended today to refine in the next week or two and get to the point that we can introduce it next month from discussion draft to reality. i think we need to seize the moment and forward forward. thank you for your partnership and your testimony. with that, this testimony is adjourned.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> get information for members of government in the palm of

your hand when you order your copy of 2024 congressional directory with bio and contact information for every house and senate member of the 118th congress, important information on the committees, president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. the congressional directory costs 32.95 plus shipping and handling and scan the code on the right and order your cape toy. this afternoon federal reserve chair jerome powell will talk about monetary policy a the economys he gives an update on the central bank's next move on ierest rates. watc live, 2:30 p.m. on c-span now, our full video app, or online at c-span.org.

>> nonfiction book lovers, listen to influential interviewers on the after words podcast and on q & a, wide ranging conversations with nonfiction authors and others. weekly hour long conversations that regularly feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics and the about books podcast takes you behind the scenes of the nonfiction book publishing industry with industry updates and best sellers. download the free c-span now app or wherever you get your podcast, and on our website, c-span.org/podcast. ♪♪ c-span's been delivering unfiltered congressional coverage for 45 years. here is a highlight from a key moment. >> i stand here with my

colleagues from the arizona delegation, both senate and house, and with very close friends of congresswoman gabrielle gifford, to remember a tragic event that took place three years ago today. on january 8th, 2011, at 10:10 a.m. in just 19.6 seconds 19 people, including congresswoman giffords and myself were shot in tucson, arizona. this event was democracy in action. a member of this body, the people's house was meeting one-on-one with her constituents. six wonderful people died that day, including by friend gabe zimmerman, by go-to guy on the coss