Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I, yeah, here we go. So good afternoon, everyone. This is the meeting of the Senate Government Operations Committee on Thursday, 01/15/2026. Let me begin by apologizing to anyone who may have been inconvenienced. It was all on me. Originally, the agenda did indicate that we'd started two, and I thought knowing the floor session was gonna be very, very light that I could start at 01:30. So that's what we changed it to. Obviously, I aired by changing it back to two, but I was trying to get know I could We're like, it's a were very happy to have the extra half hour. At any rate, if you were inconvenienced, I sincerely apologize, and it's all on me for that. So today, we're gonna take a look at s 23 again, a bill that began in this committee last year, an act relating to the use of synthetic media in elections. I I would say it was a long process, not particularly fortuitous, but but it took some time to get all the stakeholders in shape with what the final bill was. As I remember, and Representative Sheawater's evidence with us from the other body, got out of the senate, went to the house, got to the house floor. Believe Who? It It's Westlake. Got some time. During the veto session, it simply ran out of yardage. It just we didn't have time to get it messaged back over to our body so we could take a look at it because there were some changes. So hopefully everybody, maybe with the additional half hour you all have, was able to take a look at some of the changes that the House has suggested, and my goal today is to move it out of here and get it to the floor. Well, this one will probably be on Tuesday because it'll have to get noticed. And if we can concur with the proposed changes, hopefully

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: We'd love that.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I think we would. Senator Morley wasn't with us last year, so this is a new, bill to him. So with that as a beginning, I would ask, the representative, who's the ranking member of the House Committee on Government Operations, just to maybe give us a flavor for what you've changed, why the committee felt that, you know, it needed a little tweaking.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Unless, senator, we haven't met. I'm Shay Waters Evans from Charlotte.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Nice to

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: house committee. So we yes. Kind of

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: just follow on introductions. You haven't met Rick Siegel either.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Oh, That's Richard. Do. We have a brand new committee member. Those of you that follow judiciary may have, as Senator Vyhovsky does, saw the, the change. So Emery, who Matthias, who was with us here, is now in judiciary, and, we're happy to welcome Lynn Jakubascus as our new committee assistant here. She was in judiciary, so they, in essence, switched chairs and welcome in. Welcome. Thank you for the protocol, Senator Clarkson. I appreciate that. So

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: We I was the floor reporter for this bill. I was a a strong advocate for it. I really did some hard work making sure that we got to a place in the house where we did keep it going. And we I did I presented it in June the day of the the veto session. I saw that. We had legislative councils kind enough to share some documents with me to remind me what we did because it was so very long ago. Didn't think so. Well, it went that six months, not by fast, but still seems long. So our intent was not to alter what your intent was with the bill. It wasn't to to change it or make it less stringent. It was to clarify, to make it easier for the attorney general's office to prosecute if they need to. For instances, regarding this AI and the the fake media for elections. So the first thing that we did was did you did you get

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: this

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: piece?

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Side by side?

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Yeah. The Dutch Every

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: committee member has the side by side of their computer.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: He's gonna go through I'm not gonna go through it with you in-depth. I'm just gonna kinda follow along because I'm gonna So with my the first thing that we did is we changed section 2,031 in the definition of deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media. Excuse me. So we narrowed the definition a little bit. We said we tightened it up a little bit. We got rid of some text here and just said that it what it is, it appears to a reasonable person to be a representation of a political candidate and that injures the reputation of a candidate or attempts to unduly influence the African public election and then left it at that. Because it's it was important for us to make the distinction between just any person making any video and really clarifying, just for for the sake of not limiting free speech, of not limiting, you know, parody, satire, all those other things to really clarify that it's for a candidate. And it's not just I mean, we know part of campaigning sometimes is making someone else look bad, and that is just part of life for a political candidate. So it's not about making someone look bad with it. It with, you know, this AI with these deep fake videos, but more that it's that it's trying to unduly influence the outcome of the election. So it's like a lie that's really intended to alter the course of

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: of reflection.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I just think it would be helpful for John Yes. To begin with the big picture of what this test is trying to do.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Oh, come on. I don't know. I'm just I can see that. I okay. So this film I can do that. I can explain it. So the bill It's hard, I think, for Of course. Oh, sorry. My apologies. So s '23 is intended to create a the thirty days before an election, if someone is creating, producing, distributing online, like deepfake videos or or something that's meant to really spread Misinformation. Like malicious false information about a candidate, that it would that in it's not saying they can't do it. We're not banning anything. But just saying in the thirty days before an election, there needs to be a disclosure put on it, whether it's a printout or if it's a video or something like that or not a printout. A video, like but also there are some things in there to make sure that, like, if your grandma shares it on her Facebook account that she's not gonna get arrested. Yep. So just trying to limit it to that people need to disclose in these videos thirty days before an election that it is, in fact, generated. There's text in the bill that's really specific about what that disclosure is to let people know that it was generated Yeah. By AI.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Thank you. Great

[Dylan (Leonine Public Affairs, for NECTA)]: job. That was helpful.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah. There was occasion, if you remember, in the election of twenty four, as I recall, in New Hampshire, a video appeared and appeared to me. Biden. Joe Biden saying, please don't vote in the primary, we're all set up, kind of thing. And it wasn't him. So that was the sort of sum of the impetus for this.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Senator

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Vyhovsky. I apologize. I'm just trying to get back up to speed. But can you remind me, it was thirty days what came out of this committee? Believe Oh, Rick says he can answer the question, so I can wait for him to get back.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Okay. Yeah. I'm not quite sure if that was

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I will because I thought it was longer in this community too because I'm curious why we would take it if ballots are mailed out before longer. I think it's forty five days.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Forty it's still nine days.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. So it would be concerning to me if that disclosure wasn't necessary while people had ballots in hand.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Wait. Did you say just

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's still nine days.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Oh, it didn't. We didn't change it to thirty? Okay. Just read false information. Okay. Never mind. I'm trying to not bring this to ninety

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: minutes. Wasn't synthetic.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: No. It was it is forgetful that happened.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: It was chipped to him and Yeah. No day. Close your. Okay.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Okay. Ninety days. Yes. Per ninety.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Much much more comfortable with that.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I know. I was like, why did you change it to thirty?

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: I I don't know why. I just I didn't even know we didn't. So there you

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: go. You didn't.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Okay. So the next Sorry.

[Sen. John Morley III (Clerk)]: I will say because you're looking at it online.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I'm looking at it now in our committee online, and it doesn't identify the changes. This is sort of a side by side.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: If you went to the side by side.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I know. Side. There's a side I said, In quite good at

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: your email.

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: Oh, in email. Or it is under Rick.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: From Lynn. I think Lynn sent it on behalf of Rick Sable.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Okay. Great.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: And then open that up, and it'll show you the differences between

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Thank you. I will look for that.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. So I understand Yeah.

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: Just to to make it clear, we

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: don't wanna we don't wanna stifle free speech. We just wanna make sure that people are aware of what they're consuming.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Senator, what do Thank want to

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: you, mister chair. So on that and this may be I wanna ask intent of the committee, and then it might be a question as well for Rick. But, in section two zero three one, you changed in section two to without the consent of the candidate. Yes. I was happy that we didn't have that previously because I do believe that you, as a candidate, I can make an AI video of myself doing something completely positive that is in a manner that creates a realistic but false representation of myself. So I could consent to an AI. I still think if I'm Yeah. Happily doing it and I'm saying, look, Becca lives in a a beautiful mansion, and here's a video of her hosting gorgeous parties, and it's fake. That could still unduly influence an election. Or a video of me saving a child from a burning building. Yes. Gets exploded. Yeah. That I would be very consenting of positive information. I might even endorse that information, but I still don't think that that's appropriate. And it seems like you changed that in your bill, so

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: that would be alright. We did. And I believe it was for exactly that purpose. For if I wanted to make a campaign video of myself saving all the whales, that I could do so with my own concern. That if somebody did make one about me, I thought was flattering or that was good, then I could still be like, yeah. I disagree with that change.

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: Yes. But I respect you. If I remember it,

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I or Emory or Gregory. Don't know.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I did you send it? It was side by side to the committee assistance groups? But I don't have it from any plan.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: You could spell your name. 12:44PM.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Okay. Sorry. I just

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll I'll just email to you right now.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Okay.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. I'll you have that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Right. We'll see it soon.

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: Yeah. I think that would be one change.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Oh, that's good. Yeah. I don't I believe if I remember correctly Yeah. I think that the the context for it was that it is that where is that line when you're campaigning between like, everything you do as a campaigner, everything you do if you are, you know, an advocacy group or a PAC or something and and what you wanna do is influence the outcome of an election, which is all of that stuff is for. Right? That's why people do, and sometimes, unfortunately, people do lie, but that's not against the law. This is really specific for Yeah. I think it is I think it's just

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: story reality enough that I I do I would be like, I especially dislike the use of AI by Donald Trump. And that style of content, I think, distorted people's belief of what he has done and hasn't done. And whether or not you agree with those policies, I still think it provides so much confusion Yep. That it should be labeled. And that's the bottom line for this. So even though someone might be consenting so I appreciate that change, and I respect what you're saying, but I think that that would lead me to not feel good about concurring.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Least

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: We can definitely have Rick weigh in on it. It changes things.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: You ready? Yep. Okay. So the next section, 2032, we glasses would have been a good idea. We we Oh, thank you. Wow. It matches my outfit. Thank you very much, senator. I've got it was much better. Okay. So it what you had was, you know, a person shall not distribute synthetic media that the person knows or should have known is deceptive, and we removed or should have known.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I don't know that

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I can support that change.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. Break his gun. This may not be as easy as possible. No.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I believe I'm I'm trying

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: to remember the reason why, and I think we talked about this earlier. Didn't we

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: get it? Yeah.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is it

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: helpful if Rick joins you?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah. I don't that's a great idea.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I need my

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Then I have to I will you can my pleasure. I remember the repair. Thank you.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Oh, wonderful. Can I be?

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Rick Seigel, office of legislative council. Senator Morley, nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. So I'll start with the Yeah. Should have known that the penalty section Mhmm. As it came out of the senate was

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: That's what I

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: only knowingly. So the fact that you had a, you know, violation as knew or should have known not matching the penalty, just knowing it. You had to you had to correct that. So the committee decided to go with just knowing it. And it's also a stronger First Amendment argument as well, that you knew what you were doing, and you violated that. Should have known as the reasonable person standard, and it's just more a bit broader of a category of speech restrictions.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Would it be possible to correct the discrepancy on the other end, wisher penalty, as opposed to because I I do think some of this because we actually find any discussion about should have known and the reasonable person standard, and yeah, I just feel better about that. Of

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: course, my comment, and I have another, a newer case to bring up in California, the same law. California has a very similar law in Vermont to Fifth Water. It was struck down by the by a district court, not appellate court. And they're very, very focusing on you are restricting speech. You can do that, but you have to be very, very narrow in your restrictions. So if you open it up to should have known, you open it up to people who didn't intentionally produce the synthetic media that affected an election, but they should have known because it was an ad of x candidate doing something really insane that you should have known was AI.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: So have two points to that. One, we're not restricting speech. We're not saying you can't do it. We're saying you have to tell us you're doing it. Two, it's only in app applicable to the production of it. And I'm not entirely sure how one produces AI without knowing or should have knowing that they produced AI. Well, distribution, I believe.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Produce or distribution.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Produce or distribute. Okay. Yeah. So it's it's both. You could but if you produced it and it's late,

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: you should know that it was AI. Yes. But if you distribute it and Right. So if you are distributing something that was produced and labeled, you should know that it's AI. Because if you're if the person producing it is following the law, they have labeled Therefore, you should know that it is AI.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: And that's on you if you're So

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the the first comment about restricting speech, when you when the government requires you to like, as candidates for election, you have to label your ads or pay for by the campaign group, ex candidate. So when you do that, that is government restricted speech. The government is making you put that label on your campaign sign, on your campaign ads. So here, it's similar where the government is telling you you have to put this disclosure on your AI, synthetic media, so that it you may not think of it as restricting speech, but you are telling a person what you have to do to speak in this country, which is something you don't normally do when it comes to advertising. Right? You rarely if it's a pharmaceutical ad, you have to disclose certain things. But with elections, it's still protected by the First Amendment. So just wanted to clarify, it is restricting speech under the court's interpretation. So that's why you have to be careful in how you structure this. That's all.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: If I remember correctly, we were concerned as we were going through this, not with weakening what you sent to us, but more it seems like we were weakening it, but I think the thought is that we were strengthening it in the way that it was actually going to face maybe fewer challenges on the court. So that was our goal.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: That's correct.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Is that we were trying to make it to have an easier avenue for it to to not be struck down or or to move against is if, you know, if if if that case,

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: like, not progressed in the court.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: So coming back, Nate.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yep.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Okay. So now on the next page, in the next oh, further down in that section, we removed the part about the text not being smaller than the largest font size of the other text appearing in a visual media. Once they made out a video that had shea in giant letters at the top, and then if that was the only text text in the ad, then if it was, like, 46 font, then the disclaimer would also have to be in 46 font, and that would be Impossible? Yes. Unwieldy. Unwieldy. It unwieldy. So I believe we so we changed it to it shall appear in a size that is easily readable by the average viewer. So I'm not that clear on

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: what page you're on. I'm on the

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: second page. On the side by side? Of this side by side. Right here at the top. This

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I'm sorry. Guess I'm that. So

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: let me also clarify that if maybe it's clear, but this is the way I do it. The red language has been removed from senate version. Yellow means it changed, and green means in the house side, it's new language. So in this case, the senate version had that same shall appear in a size that's easily readable. The house removed the and not smaller because of what Brett Waters having said.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah. Senator Rutland District.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I appreciate the reason we're removing that, and that does make sense. My concern with language around easily readable by the average viewer is that it is going to potentially exclude people with disabilities. And I would much rather see something in there around universal design or I know that sort of universally accepted fonts and sizes for the disability community. I think it's Arial 14. So I would much rather be prescriptive to make sure that we are inclusive of people whose vision maybe is not so great. But I appreciate your point that maybe we don't want in big bold letters of lives. I wanna make sure that it's inclusive of not just sort of the people who generally are easily able to access things and have a broader network of folks.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. So if you wanna do that, mister chair, you'd also wanna do the audio recording. It's it's also based on the average Yeah. So you'd wanna make sure that's it. The committee wants to go with that. You'd wanna correct that as well. Thank

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: you for sending it to me, but I cannot find where you are because I'm How about I share my screen? Two, and two is there's no yellow or gray the green is commentary of general interest on page two from Yep.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: You're on the right page. You're aware of treat

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: the red on upper left. Right. That's in red.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Deleted. Right.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Red was deleted. Yeah.

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: But they didn't add the easily readable. That was already there.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: It was already there. Got it. We just removed that. Yep.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And you added commentary and general

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Later, yeah.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yes.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: That's the next thing we're gonna be

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: talking about. You're in the

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: right font. I am in the right font. Good. That's good.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I did request a share screen. I think maybe if you allow me to share my screen, can put it on the

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: you let Rick Sagal in as a

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: As a chair of my host? Yeah. Thank you.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: So we added you see, as as senator Clarkson pointed out, we added commentary of general interest as one of the exceptions where this does not apply. And I believe we added this because

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So it's already it's it's in submission too. If you look at the bottom of that page, you have that same

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Oh, that's great. It was just making it

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Sorry.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. It's okay. So the exception carries forward not just on a radio or television broadcasting station, but also a website or a newspaper. If you publish something that's commentary or general interest, you are also in the category that you were accepted from this bill.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Thank you. Saving me. Alright. And then the next page, we have okay. So it's oh, okay. So we added distributes on the top section.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Which actually increases the scope. This is the one area where it does because the Yeah. The issue was somebody that shares a AI video, they're not producing that video. But if they get it from somebody else, so they share it, they would be considered distributing that. And that's all also actually open to interpretation. Did you share a video? Is that you distributing that something to think about as not defined? But

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Yeah. And we added it here because the or distributes because it's these are the part of the exceptions, and it's about satire impurities. We wanted to make sure that that was consistent with what we did before.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So it tightens the

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Yes.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yes. Senator Vyhovsky?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yes. We also do put satire impurity. My question around distribution, and I actually support other additions, but my question is if we don't have that in there and there was an instance where someone produced it and then gave it to someone else to do the distribution, would that be a loophole around how we did it?

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So if someone creates content, is the satire a parody?

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Or is

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: it No.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And someone else distributes it?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Like, Like, I am someone who's I've made this, and now I've given it to you so you can distribute it without does that that

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. Because the main the main disclosure here is a person shall not publish, communicate, or otherwise distribute.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Okay.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So and thank you, mister Chittenden. I misspoke. It is tightening the scope of satire parody. I'm sorry. To go back up here. A person who produces or distributes deceptive and fraudulent media that is satire. So it increases people who are sharing a satire video. They will not be seen as violent in the bill. Yes.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: That protection makes sense to me, although I have to say the wild world we live in in 2026, satire and parody are sometimes hard to distinguish from reality. And

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: and luckily, the courts have kind of defined. Right. As best as they can what that is, but it's obviously you can't always pinpoint it. Okay.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: The next thing we did, we changed in section 2,041 penalties to remedies.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And that's just a technical change to make sure the word is used correct throughout the chapter.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yep.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: And then we added the entire next section about civil investigations.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, so

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Am I This yeah.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This was a request of the attorney general. Yeah. This exact language appears in the campaign finance section of title 17. So the attorney general wanted the same language brought over to this bill, giving them the authority to conduct civil investigations into these violations. The penalties didn't change. It's still you can look at the bill still. Make sure it happens on the right here.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: It's like 5,010

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: 15 maybe depending on the the frequency.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The first violation is 1,000, not more than 1,000. These if it's intentional, to cause violence or bodily harm, not more than 5,000. If you commit a violation within five years after one or more violations, not more than 10,000.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And if you commit it with the intent to cause violence, bodily harm, within five years of one or more violations, not more than 15,000. Get those numbers in the check.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Yeah. And then the attorney general's office can then investigate these, not

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: just two people. Right. That's in the teeth. Okay.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So yes? Can I go back

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to the definition? I think it's the most important part of the the change, just to make sure we're all Here it on the same page. Yeah. And, again, like the representative said, the the main point here was to strengthen the bill's chance to survive in a court challenge because this is probably going to be challenged. I just had to be upfront about that. This type of bill exists in, I think, 26 states. A couple states ban it, Texas and Minnesota.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And which we understood from you from the beginning would have been the simplest way to see it.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: And the most legally challenging to actually The policies in Texas, and did you say Louisiana? Minnesota. Minnesota, have they been challenged?

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Minnesota challenged, but they didn't have standing, so it was dismissed. I so I can't say that those would be, you know, constitutional, but I would be shocked if they subcised court scrutiny.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Senator White.

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: Well, thank you, mister chair. But I my doc I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: don't wanna interrupt you if you're going on No. No.

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: The definition piece. I think at this point, just based on the changes, I'm not comfortable. I wouldn't be voting no on concurring, but, ultimately, we'll see how the committee votes as a whole. My main question outside of the definition is with the change to distributes, did you hear from, like, the broadcasters and other folks? Are they distributors?

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: They are accepted, I believe. Okay.

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: So that remains that they're still, even though you've added that word, the class of people or not even really people, like the class of organization. Yes. So that came and paraded through our committee to say, please, we don't wanna have the liability on this one.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Just for satire. Just for the satire and parody. The the they're still accepted from the bill in other ways. Okay. The change was just in the satire and parody piece.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Oh, yes. We so it it in this section here with all the exceptions, it says radio television broadcasting station, putting a cable or satellite television app or program or website, all those things.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Those are

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: nothing changed. We added something. Okay. Great. But we didn't remove anything. Okay.

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: So there's still all. Well, that makes me feel good because I do know, you we wanna make sure that we're narrowly getting at the group of people who are causing the damage rather than those who just happen to be kind of the media landscape that we live in. Thank you.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: So I don't have a problem with

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: that. Okay. So thank you for bringing that up because there's obviously people in the room that may or may not want to weigh in. I have not heard from anybody that saw changes that said, uh-oh. This is not what we wanted. I I didn't think this was gonna be part of it. So I'll what I'd like to do is give them an opportunity now if there's anything from Dylan or Wendy or anybody that's here that has other concerns besides those that were reached by the committee to kind of speak up now. And if not, my choice will be to go back and see if we can. We have a couple of choices we could do. We could take a committee vote to concur. If it's a positive vote, that's the way it will be reported on the floor, or we can propose a further amendment, but that delays the process because then it's gonna go back to the house for their consideration. So but let me see if there's anybody in the gallery, so to speak, that wants to say anything.

[Dylan (Leonine Public Affairs, for NECTA)]: For the record, Dylan's working with Leonine on behalf of New England Connectivity and Telecommunications Association. Spent quite a bit of time in the committee last year with welcome, senator, on this bill. That, was supported as it came out of this committee and the senate and remains supportive with changes in the house. Feel like they are important changes that clarify and make more clear, especially, I think, for the AG's office to go and enforce this. So we would support

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. The bill as Appreciate that. Wendy?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: For the record, Wendy Mays, executive director of the Vermont Association of Broadcasters. We are supportive of the changes coming from them.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. Anybody else representing a group that wants to say something?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah. Quinn Houston, Vyhovsky, the Democracy Associate. I would say this is not one of our main priorities. A little disappointed by the changes to the definition. I think that just narrowing it down to political candidates leaves a lot of open room for fabricated false media to be presented as evidence of a false reality.

[Quinn Houston (Democracy Associate)]: I understand that protecting political candidates in any way, if this is a non negotiable, if this is important to pass this, then we support it. But I think refining the definition to be broader is also to be considered.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else?

[Betty Keller (League of Women Voters of Vermont)]: I'm Betty Keller from All The Women Voters of Vermont. And I share some of the concerns about the changes. I'm concerned that besides the candidate, there could be their surrogates, their family members, a setting, a contissue that they have promoted or opposed that is distorted to make they look like they have a different position. I'm concerned about that change and the knowing or should have known. So often, of things just say, Well, I didn't know. And if they really should have known. The video disclaimer, it looks like it previously was to show it throughout the video and now it's at the beginning of the end.

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: So anybody could grab a clip and

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: just pop it onto Facebook without

[Betty Keller (League of Women Voters of Vermont)]: the disclaimer showing. And they may have done it that way too, so they didn't know if they shared it. So if it's shown all the way through, well, you can't take out a clip with and not have those for sure. I think so. I'm concerned about these changes.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. Anybody else? Well, it would appear that we have more to do here.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Chair, can

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I just

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: That's why we're because I do wanna make sure that we have correct information? I respect your point. My understanding of the bill is that they do have four video recordings. The disclosure shall appear for the full duration of the video recording. I don't know if they had

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: have I I'm

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: looking for

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: Oh, okay. Yeah. So hopefully that. Hopefully I'm mistaken. I thought I

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: had read that it was at the beginning and at the end it was more than two minutes and popping

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: in the middle. Where did

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: I see that? Water area apartment.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: I believe it was in. Oh, okay. Okay. I still share the

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: concern about video recording then. Okay. So Okay.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: But it does show it does currently have it throughout the entire video.

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: It says four four video recordings. Disclosure shall appear for the full duration of the video recording.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Great. That's fine. My mistake. I'm sorry. No. It's a great

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Appreciate the

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Well, I wonder if I mean, my thought would be that if you removed that, then you were just producing a deep fake AI video. Then if you removed that text from it, then you would be violating the law.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: That could be interpreted that way, think. Yep.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I mean, I understand I understand the concerns. It it it we talked a lot about it. I I think our perspective was it was important to reach a place that everyone was comfortable within our committee and that, you know, would not only stand up to court scrutiny, but house of representative scrutiny. And we were really trying to reach a good compromise for making sure that we weren't making the scope of it so broad that it was gonna be applied to any person about whom a a deepfake video was made. Because really, this was about, you know, the way you sent it over, it was about security and elections. And and that's really what this is for and and kind of inspired by that Joe Biden recording and and making sure that people aren't using these things specifically to alter the the course of an election. That's kind of the outside regular campaign shenanigans.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Is that what you're asking?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I'm a little confused how Evelyn would who Sunhovar could do that, given that it quite clearly says with the intent to injure the reputation of a candidate to influence the outcome of an election for it to otherwise deceive a voter. Like, it's quite specific to elections. It would not mean that someone would have to put a disclosure on an AI that they made about their brother rescuing puppies. Yes. Or how do until with an election.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that if I could answer that last part there or to otherwise deceive a voter. But so, I mean, that's that's pretty broad to see in what way. Yes. I'll we we're all thinking about the elections tomorrow or don't vote tomorrow. Right? That's clearly something you wanna protect, which I think this current language does because you're un gonna unduly influence the elect outcome of an election if you lie about the day of the election. But if you're trying to deceive a voter, again, that's my brain is trying to figure out what the court's gonna highlight, and they're gonna say that's really broad. That could be

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: If we it's gonna be cloudy tomorrow. Or to deceive a voter.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: the other concern

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I have around just being inapplicable to a political candidate is it does not touch on issue campaigns. So now I can be the landlord association putting out an AI video talking about how just cause eviction is gonna make everybody's rent go up Right. 400%. That's true.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: And that, like but this language would not cover that. Would be fine.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I think so when I I was gonna talk about the definitions, there's two harms here we're trying to protect. The candidate's reputation, which is defamation, right, already protected in law, and the integrity of the election.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yes.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Those are two things I think the court's gonna say. These are important interests of the government to protect. Right? When you start talking about issue based stuff, which may be important to some people, not to other people, the government's gonna say, well, now you're picking and choosing what speech is content based and which speech we should restrict. And that's a bit more problematic than having two goals, which are these two things. Defamation of a person, not of an issue, of a person, and which you can't defame an issue. Right? Or the outcome of an election.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: But if that issue was on the ballot, like Yeah. If that is like, I I don't actually think that I'm just saying you can't make AI lies about random issues. I'm saying that's on the ballot. Like, people are gonna go vote on it, and you are creating AI lies to say don't vote this way.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: I I believe that what this is dealing with specifically is is the deep fake videos that would alter or fake a voice or an image of somebody. Correct? So not just make a a mean video about an issue, but it would have, you know, my face sitting here at the table, but change my words using my voice, know, the tone of my voice and my face to say that I was saying things that were damaging the election. That's why, you know, later in that paragraph, we changed it to, if you look at number two in the definitions, in section subsection b, where it says synthetic media means a video or an image, an audio recording, or video recording. You had the individual in yours, and we changed it to political candidate because individual was so broad that it really would apply to anybody. And it it seemed unenforceable to to say any individual person. That's like a whole other bill. That's like a whole other thing. And we were trying to just keep the focus really on elections and using deepfake and AI to to unduly influence the outcome of election. Because really, when you're making a campaign act, you're influencing you're attempting to influence an election, but this is a different manner of doing so.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: But, you So go ahead. Sorry. But people make campaign ads for these issue campaigns that are on the ballot. And it's not any individual. It's there's multiple points here. It's any individual that is doing these things. And it's not all the time. It's within ninety days of an election. And so I I do actually think it should be broader than a candidate because we are a state that runs issues on the ballot for people to vote on. And so I don't think that the executive director of some organization opposed to it should be able to say, I'm gonna pick on you for a minute. Hey. Quinn said these things. I made a video of Quinn saying that actually this is a terrible idea. Even though Quinn works for VCRB that supports this. Or is like, I I don't actually think that should be allowed, and I do think that unduly influences an election and is bad for democracy. Yeah.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Senator White?

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: Thank you, chair Collamore. Yeah. I also don't agree with the change to political candidate because I could make an AI video of George Clooney saying, I'm voting Becca White, and that wouldn't be covered under here because he's not the political candidate. But, hey, I could really win me some votes. So that, I think is a problem, is you can create like, one of the tools of a political ad is to show that you have endorsements or support from others. And those people may not be the political candidate or an active candidate. They might be community members. Like, I could also do a fake AI video of a bunch of real Vermonters, you know, leaning on their truck saying, vote, You know? That would be a lie. That would be distorting reality. And it would also unduly influence an election. But because it's not an AI of me saying that or another political candidate in the race, my understanding of with your change is it wouldn't be enforceable. Well I don't know if that's so if that's correct, then I'd like to understand.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I mean, we're we're operating from that point. Like like, counsel said of of saying these two things. We're protecting the integrity of the election, and we are also trying to make sure that candidates are protected from something that would be really damaging. What your examples would be, so if you look at that first section, says, it means synthetic media that appears to a reasonable person to be a representation of political candidate, and that injures the reputation of the candidate. So you would not be injured, I don't believe, by George Clooney saying that he voted for you. Yes.

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: But I do think it would unduly influence the outcome of an election. Right. But that's So I think it falls under so I I hear what you're saying. The changes, though, it's not considered synthetic media, though. It's not considered the definition of synthetic media unless it's a political candidate's appearance, speech, not.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Which is what

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: So that it's all it's, like, misordered in a way almost with the definitions, because you need to know what synthetic media is to know what deceptive, fraudulent synthetic media is. And it yeah.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Well, I also think Becca's point is exactly that, that it wouldn't be covered if George Clooney said I voted for Becca, and it should be. Yeah. Or if we wanna make a more realistic example for the state of Vermont, if Bernie Sanders said, I voted for Rebecca, but it was synthetic media. Would that Like, that should and and he wasn't

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: running that year. Yeah. That's my question. If it was a different political candidate not running in the election, how would this fall under your new definition? If Bernie wasn't running that year and they made an AI of him saying, he most for me or something that was negative. You're definitely no. He didn't live in your district. Not much yet.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But It's any political candidate. So if he's not running, he's not getting to.

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: Okay. So yeah. Then that would be that's that's tough. Because that means if you are on an off year with a congressional candidate, an AI deepfake of them supporting or not supporting you would not be enforceable under this. And I think that that's a really logical potential reality we're moving towards.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: What? Absolutely agree with you that it shouldn't be able to be positive or negative. Yeah. It shouldn't have to injure someone. It shouldn't be able to benefit them either.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So you just wanna advance that content that

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: mean, yes. But I we thought it would be

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: In a manner that creates

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: a real

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: And we go do you want.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: You can do whatever you want.

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: I think our our thinking was

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: that we were hoping to pass the bill that would that would solve the problem. The problem being, you know, this sort of, you know, what you keep going back to Joe Biden's recording, which was an egregious thing to do, was was really to prevent that in the moment of an election, the ninety days before, to make sure that people understood that it was synthetic media. Right. Didn't wanna ban anything. We didn't wanna make it so broad that it was not going to stand up to any kind of challenge in court. And because we were hoping that that if we were to to work so hard on this, and I know you guys are too, to pass this legislation, that it was gonna be something that could actually be effective and make a difference. It is something. And to to try to, you know, get our toes close to the line as possible, but make sure that it was something that that would withstand the challenge. We got Vanity et Yeah.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Because we

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: we have a choice that we began with was considering Vanity et al.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Absolutely. And and as as much as that's what I prefer to do

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: is I think that's where you and I began.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yes. I do think, to to your question, I know I was flipped and I said yes, the answer is, you know, is yes, I would like to ban it. Mhmm. Recognizing that that is really challenging, I think we need to label more of it. Yeah.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So if I can attempt to rein in things in, sounds like the definition in Section 2,031 is what we're talking mostly about. Does any committee member have any other specific concerns with any of the other language later?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I think we've raised a couple of them.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I didn't keep track of them, but is that alright?

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: Thank you, mister chair. I think at I'm this restricted. Yeah. I think at this moment, I would be comfortable supporting this bill if we return to at least impart the original definition in section two zero three one.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: I could do that. I also have a question around distributes, but I don't feel that's not a make or break issue for me. I don't think I could vote at this point Okay. With the new definition.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: To be introduced bill or original to our bill?

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: Original to what is on the side by side, which I believe is what we passed.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: That's the sound

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: of green.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah. That's the of green.

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: Yeah. I could take out our environment. I guess I could see how that could be, like, a little.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Did you keep track of any of your other concerns?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: No. But I can go through this. I assume we're not gonna be making these changes today, and I can move you side by side between now and the next time you take out. I think Rick I can do that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I think Rick can try to

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Did you leave a background? Of course.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Oh, that's job.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Part of my job.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: That's a good point.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The disabilities, people with disabilities, and seeing.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: And then should have known.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Was there a clear direction on the that should have known instead of you all?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Well, you had a good a good explanation as to why we I were I don't disagree.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: And definitely, can't figure out.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Trick challenges in the beginning rather than that.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I'm fine. I can probably sit on living with should have known being removed. I don't like it. Okay. But I could probably consider living with it.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: In that, again, we'll have to switch the the penalties up to should have known. If you have a brain wreck.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Rather do.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: What's your schedule like tomorrow?

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think at 01:00, I'm busy, but maybe after 02:00. 02:30 would be safe.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: We have a security briefing at two. Well, we may have to put it off until next week then.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Could I

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, this is We need you with

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: us in order to Could

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: we do it at three?

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Long as

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: long I don't know how long the yeah. Okay. 03:00.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: What? The security briefing, don't think it's more than an hour. It's supposed to be an hour.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: What about three? Let's see here. Yeah. Three should be fine. Okay. Yep. And for your purposes, Shay, you'll have to go back, obviously, and let our committee know that we didn't concur. I'm getting that impression at least. Have you And that you know yeah. But I think Okay. To do the right thing, I think we need to adjust the insurance. I can

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: I can go back and look at it at a couple of things? I'm gonna I'm gonna go back and look at the testimony.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Okay. That

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: would be we have YouTube. Yeah. That's go back

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: and actually look at this.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah. And you're welcome to join us at three if you like.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: We'd love to.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. I do. Yes.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I just have a question Sure. Before the you if you're ready to to adjourn this one, but did that were do you wanna just revert to what the senate did, or do you wanna have a conversation about what Oh,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: that was so nice. Yeah.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: That helps. I think it's gonna be a conversation.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. I will I will be prepared.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. Think we'll compromise.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: As I know.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: As I hear. Okay.

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: Yeah. Think we also just certainly part I care about Oh. The Well,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I don't mind that we've gone back and forth. We have. But

[Sen. Rebecca 'Becca' White (Member)]: I'm okay with thinking about.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah, we could check. Yeah. We could edit our little work.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay, so let's reconvene at three with whatever suggested changes in the language our group comes up with with your help and help Rick's help, and we'll see whether we can but then it's still gonna go back to you guys.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Yeah. So come back. I mean, there's January.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I'll watch and see what some I

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: of our remembered some of the lies. This morning, I was when we started talking, was like, why didn't we do that? And now it's it's COVID. I'm gonna refresh a little bit now.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. Just And hopefully, we won't do anything which will upset it. Other metrics of the program.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think so.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I think we're just looking for real clarity here.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Yeah. We were you know, as you are certain and concerned about free speech and not limiting that, and it was something at the forefront of our minds the whole time we were working on it. So Okay.

[Sen. John Morley III (Clerk)]: Well, thank you for your work on it.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. My concern is finding the balance between, yes, protecting free speech, but also not always being 500 steps behind in AI. Like, yes, that happened with Joe Biden, and we can we can retroactively, like, hey. Don't do that again. But the next thing like, I'd like to actually try to get out of in front

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: of this a little bit.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And so we get it. The 10 probably is gonna be Like,

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: we're gonna need some But we're gonna to do that. Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: But inevitably, we're always gonna be behind.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: But we don't have to be that far behind. We can try to get a

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: little closer. Maybe we can get a 100 feet behind.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: I remember the secretary of state's office saying last year, I'm sure you do too, that, you know, if we put it off until next session that, you know, things are gonna be advancing and happening in those six months or seven months that were significant changes already, and that it was gonna be not too late, but we would be farther behind. So, you know, there's an urgency to it, but I'll say you're I

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: think you're right. Like, you have to be careful make sure we're forward thinking. Well, if

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: we're able to come up with changes that satisfy our group Sure. We'll suggest that we offer revised proposal of amendment.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: We

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: had some healthy debate up in Hagoma, and I'm so excited to go back there and tell them that this is not gone. Instead, I

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: You're know how hard we try.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: I'm bringing this back. They are gonna kick me right out of the rail. Alright. Thank you so much.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Thank you

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: for your

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: glasses. Alright.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Chair)]: We'll take a ten minute break and move on to our

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: next one.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And get your, of course, stuff. I I have to go back. Thank you, Rex.

[Rick Seigel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. You good, Hang on. I'm sorry.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I'd like to leave this table.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Member)]: No. Let's hold her hostage.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (House Government Operations, Ranking Member)]: I know. I'm just gonna drink it. Will she be able to Okay. Feel that.