    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                   THE WORLD WILD WEB: EXAMINING HARMS
                                 ONLINE
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING,
                                    AND TRADE

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 26, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-13

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
                       govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                            energycommerce.house.gov
                                    __________

                            U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    60-034 PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2026
    =======================================================================

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                            BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
                                     Chairman
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia           Ranking Member
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama              KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    NEAL P. DUNN, Florida                PAUL TONKO, New York
    DAN CRENSHAW, Texas                  YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania, Vice       RAUL RUIZ, California
        Chairman                         SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
    AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas                DARREN SOTO, Florida
    DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee         KIM SCHRIER, Washington
    MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa       LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
    KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
    JAY OBERNOLTE, California            ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York
    JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
    CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
    ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          KEVIN MULLIN, California
    LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
    NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
    THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey
    MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio
    GABE EVANS, Colorado
    CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas
    JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota
                                     ------

                               Professional Staff

                         MEGAN JACKSON, Staff Director
                    SOPHIE KHANAHMADI, Deputy Staff Director
                   TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
               Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade

                           GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
                                     Chairman
    RUSS FULCHER, Idaho, Vice Chairman   JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee           Ranking Member
    KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    JAY OBERNOLTE, California            DARREN SOTO, Florida
    JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
    CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  KEVIN MULLIN, California
    ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey      ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    GABE EVANS, Colorado                 KIM SCHRIER, Washington
    CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas              FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky (ex              officio)
        officio)
                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Florida, opening statement............................     2
        Prepared statement...........................................     5
    Hon. Jan Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Illinois, opening statement.................................     7
    Hon. Brett Guthrie, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement....................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    11
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................    15
        Prepared statement...........................................    17

                                   Witnesses

    Yiota Souras, Chief Legal Officer, National Center for Missing &
      Exploited Children.............................................    19
        Prepared statement...........................................    22
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   215
    Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, Former Commissioner, Federal Trade
      Commission.....................................................    42
        Prepared statement...........................................    44
        Submitted questions for the record \1\.......................   217
    Dawn Hawkins, Senior Advisor, National Center on Sexual
      Exploitation...................................................    50
        Prepared statement...........................................    52
        Submitted questions for the record \1\.......................   219
    Clare Morell, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center............    67
        Prepared statement...........................................    69
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   221

                               Submitted Material

    Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
    List of documents submitted for the record.......................   126
    Letter from Joann Bogard, Mother of Mason-Forever 15, to Mrs.
      Houchin........................................................   128
    Letter from Maurine Molak, Co-founder, David's Legacy Foundation,
      to Mrs. Houchin................................................   131
    Letter from Brian and Courtney Montgomery, parents of Walker
      Montgomery, to Mrs. Houchin....................................   133
    Letter from Deb Mann Schmill, Founder and President, Becca
      Schmill Foundation, to subcommittee members....................   136
    Letter from Lori Schott, Mother of Annalee Schott-Forever 18, to
      Mrs. Houchin...................................................   141
    Letter from Samuel P. Chapmen, Parent Collective, Inc., et al.,
      to Mr. Guthrie, et al..........................................   147
    Letter of March 24, 2025, from Jill Seyfried, Executive Director,
      Prevent Child Abuse Kentucky, to Mr. Guthrie...................   151
    Letter from Nate Grasz, Executive Director, Nebraska Family
      Alliance to committee members..................................   152

    ----------

    \1\ Ms. Slaughter and Ms. Hawkins did not answer submitted questions
    for the record by the time of publication. Replies received after
    publication will be retained in committee files and made available at
    https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=118066.
    Letter from Daniel Degner, President, Wisconsin Family Action, to
      committee members..............................................   153
    Profiles of victims, ParentsSOS..................................   154
    Letter of March 25, 2025, from Encode, et al. to Mr. Guthrie and
      Mr. Pallone....................................................   160
    Letter of March 25, 2025, from Randall S. Page, Executive Vice
      President, Palmetto Family Council, to committee members.......   163
    Letter of March 25, 2025, from Morgan Reed, President, ACT-The
      App Association, to Mr. Bilirakis and Ms. Schakowsky...........   164
    Letter of March 25, 2025, from Soohyun Kim to subcommittee
      members........................................................   172
    Letter of March 25, 2025, from Marc Rotenberg, Executive
      Director, Center for AI and Digital Policy, et al., to Mr.
      Guthrie, et al.................................................   174
    List of Congressional hearings on child safety online between
      July 2019 and February 2025, National Center on Sexual
      Exploitation...................................................   182
    Statement of Quit Clicking Kids, March 26, 2025..................   184
    Statement of Michael Coriale, M.D................................   186
    Statement of Paris Hilton........................................   187
    Report, ``Federal Trade Commission Accomplishments from June 2021
      to January 2025,'' Federal Trade Commission\2\
    Statement, ``Public Knowledge Condemns Trump's Lawless Attack on
      FTC Independence,'' by Shiva Stella, Public Knowledge..........   188
    Letter of March 21, 2025, from AFT, et al., to Mr. Guthrie, et
      al.............................................................   190
    Article of March 19, 2025 ``We Must Fight Back Against Trump's
      Illegal FTC Firings,'' by Craig Aaron and Jessica J. Gonzalez,
      Tech Policy Press..............................................   193
    Article of January 27, 2025, ``Father of South Carolina teen who
      killed self speaks after Nigerian man charged in case,'' by
      Jason Puckett, WBTV News.......................................   198
    Article of February 19, 2025, ``SC House passes bill requiring
      parental consent for social media,'' by Skylar Laird, South
      Carolina Daily Gazette.........................................   201
    Article of January 30, 2024 ``South Carolina lawmaker whose son
      died by suicide after sextortion scam files lawsuit against
      Meta,'' by Audrey Conklin, Fox Business........................   207

    ----------

    \2\ The report has been retained in committee files and is included in
    the Documents for the Record at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/
    IF17/20250326/118066/HHRG-119-IF17-20250326-SD001.pdf.

                   THE WORLD WILD WEB: EXAMINING HARMS ONLINE

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2025

                      House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m. in
    the John D. Dingell Room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building,
    Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Bilirakis, Fulcher,
    Harshbarger, Cammack, Obernolte, James, Bentz, Houchin, Fry,
    Lee, Kean, Evans, Goldman, Guthrie (ex officio), Schakowsky
    (subcommittee ranking member), Castor, Soto, Trahan, Mullin,
    Clarke, Dingell, Veasey, Kelly, Schrier, and Pallone (ex
    officio).
        Also present: Representative Fedorchak.
        Staff present: Ansley Boylan, Director of Operations;
    Jessica Donlon, General Counsel; Natalie Hellman, Professional
    Staff Member, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Megan
    Jackson, Staff Director; Daniel Kelly, Press Secretary; Sophie
    Khanahmadi, Deputy Staff Director; Alex Khlopin, Clerk,
    Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Giulia Leganski, Chief
    Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Joel Miller, Chief
    Counsel; Brannon Rains, Professional Staff Member, Commerce,
    Manufacturing, and Trade; Evangelos Razis, Professional Staff
    Member, Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Chris Sarley,
    Member Services/Stakeholder Director; Kaley Stidham, Press
    Assistant; Matt VanHyfte, Communications Director; Hannah
    Anton, Minority Policy Analyst; Keegan Cardman, Minority Staff
    Assistant; Waverly Gordon, Minority Deputy Staff Director and
    General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Staff Director;
    Perry Hamilton, Minority Member Services and Outreach Manager;
    Lisa Hone, Minority Chief Counsel, Commerce, Manufacturing, and
    Trade; Mackenzie Kuhl, Minority Digital Manager; Matt Moore,
    Minority Press Assistant; Phoebe Rouge, Minority FTC Detailee;
    Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of Communications, Outreach,
    and Member Services; and C.J. Young, Minority Deputy
    Communications Director.
        Mr. Bilirakis. The committee will come to order.
        I would like to--before I begin my opening statement, I
    would like to yield for a brief moment to the chairman of the
    full committee.
        You are recognized, sir.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. Thank you very much for yielding.
    And I just want to set the stage for a second before we get
    started this morning.
        We have a witness at our table today that has received a
    death threat that--I listened to the voicemail. Someone said he
    was a left-wing anarchist, and you are here--you can--people,
    if they want to listen to it on the committee, they are welcome
    to--left-wing anarchist, and ``you are testifying before Nazis
    today,'' and so--and received a death threat for that. We have
    our finest on Capitol Hill here with us today, our police
    officers in the room. It is not typical. We are going to make
    sure this is a safe hearing room. We are going to make sure we
    have a very important discussion in front of us today.
        I talked to a mother yesterday, someone was going to share
    that lost her son 2 weeks ago to suicide because of what was
    going on to him online. This is a very serious topic. Most of
    the bills before us are bipartisan, and--I think all of them
    are, actually--and it is an issue we all want to address. But
    we need to make sure we do it in the right tone. And I know my
    good friend who is the chairman is going to make sure this
    committee does it in the right tone today, and I appreciate our
    officers being here.
        And I apologize for the witnesses for what you had to go
    through, because you are here to testify for protecting our
    children. I know there has been other things, as well. And we
    just want to apologize for what you have had to go to. We know
    you do--and I have been to the Center for Missing Children, and
    what you deal with every day, and what you have to deal with is
    just--it is disturbing. But it is--but I walked away going,
    well, I couldn't do that every day, but I am so happy there are
    people that are because you are there protecting our children.
    And what you see and do every day, and what you have--to see
    what our children go through. And it is just sad.
        But I want to just set the tone. We are going to have a
    safe hearing room, and we are going to have a good hearing
    today, and we are going to focus on the subject at hand.
        So I will yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. The gentleman yields back. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GUS M. BILIRAKIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

        Good morning, everyone, and welcome to today's subcommittee
    hearing to examine risks to Americans' safety online. Today's
    hearing is an incredible--it really is extremely important,
    folks, and I am thankful we are hitting the ground early this
    Congress to protect ourselves from--and our children, more
    importantly--from dangers in the online world.
        Technology has created a wonderful tool to gather
    information and connect us to the world. But with every new
    great tool, malicious actors have found a way to refigure
    technology to spread malice and harm people across the globe.
    While Congress has looked to build walls preventing these harms
    from occurring, we have failed to keep pace with technology.
        Take, for example, the important work Congress did to
    combat sexual exploitation of children. When Congress first
    worked on this issue, it was hard to imagine artificial
    intelligence could be used to create fake but lifelike,
    nonconsensual intimate images of children. Worse still, it was
    hard to imagine anyone so vile who would actually do it. But
    today these detestable people are extorting children with
    technology, creating these images and uploading them online for
    the world to see.
        And it doesn't stop with deepfakes, either. Criminals are
    masking themselves as friends or romantic partners to solicit
    intimate, authentic images of children, and ransoming these
    images for a quick buck. Detestable, as I said. The main--the
    pain these children experience is hard, and it breaks my heart.
    And I know it breaks your hearts, too. We have got to do
    something about it.
        You ought to--thank you for your work at the National
    Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and for providing
    your expertise. We appreciate you so very much. Thanks for
    being here. Again, you are doing God's work. I am looking
    forward to your testimony and why Congress must act immediately
    to stop this abhorrent practice.
        Congress must take a holistic approach to establish
    protections online, which why--that is why I am so proud to see
    many of our Members working on different mechanisms to protect
    our children. I, for one, am eager to move the ball forward on
    the Kids Online Safety Act, and I know Representative Castor
    is, as well.
        While this is not a legislative hearing, I am hoping we can
    use this hearing to improve the legislation and enact a law
    that provides parents with the tools they need, while also
    targeting illegal content from every--ever making its way to
    children's screens in the first place. Parents know their
    children the best, so we must adequately equip them with the
    tools they need to protect their families.
        Unfortunately, it is clear the existing tools do not work.
    I am tired of hearing Big Tech insist that solutions are
    already in place when it is clear they are not working. And it
    is true they are not working. No more excuses, folks. We have
    to fix this. We have to hold Big Tech accountable. The very
    companies that have positioned themselves as the gatekeepers of
    our children's online safety continue to let us down, as I
    said.
        Dawn and Clare, thank you for being here to share your
    experiences and your commitment to driving real change.
        This hearing should not be partisan. It is far too
    important of any issue to use a political--this is not a
    political circus, folks. We have got to save our kids. Whatever
    it takes, we must save our children. Many of us here today have
    introduced or are working on legislation to build protections
    from harms online.
        This is not a partisan issue, as I said before, and it
    impacts every one of our districts. And I know there are
    Members here that will share stories, and I have one here.
        In 2022 Mckenna Brown, a 16-year-old from the Tampa Bay
    area, tragically took her life after being victimized by cyber
    bullying through multiple social media apps and text messages.
    Mckinney's parents knew none of this until it was too late.
    Since then her mother, Cheryl, has been an advocate for change,
    urging lawmakers to give parents the tools necessary to keep
    the kids safe.
        I understand there are similarly situated parents here in
    the audience. Thank you so very much for coming, and I want to
    recognize your own stories, efforts, and commitment to protect
    children from online safety.
        So I do have other comments, but I don't want to run over.
    We are going to stick----
        Ms. Schakowsky. You are already over.
        Mr. Bilirakis [continuing]. To the time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bilirakis follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Bilirakis. And I am going to recognize now the ranking
    member from the great State of Illinois for her 5 minutes.
    Thank you.
        You are recognized.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAN SCHAKOWSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Ms. Schakowsky. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, we
    had in place the--what we needed to protect our children, and
    that is why I am absolutely furious right now that the--there
    has been this effort to fire the two members of the----
        Voice. FTC.
        Ms. Schakowsky [continuing]. Of the--the two members of the
    FTC who were doing a wonderful job, bipartisan, making sure
    that we are--and I will go into more detail--protecting our
    children, which you see is so important--it is very important.
    But come on, we are now seeing the effort to fire these really
    important workers.
        You know, it makes me absolutely so angry that the
    President of the United States thinks it is his ability and his
    right to fire these people, when in fact that is not true. It
    is against the law. These individuals--we have two here today--
    that have done such great work, their term had not--has not
    been over right now. So this was a decision--instead of
    justifying what is the rule according to the Supreme Court,
    this--these individuals should still be on the FTC Commission.
    So I don't really understand why we would want to substitute
    others.
        I understand that the Republicans are still in place, and
    yet the Democrats who worked so well are now considered fired,
    but they really cannot be legally--legally done. So I wanted
    to--what is this?
        Voice. Gus, we worked on tickets and privacy.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Hmm?
        Voice. You wanted to say to Gus that you worked on tickets
    and privacy together.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Yes. So Gus, I wanted to say to you we have
    worked on so many issues together on privacy, some things on
    children. I agree with you on the urgency of doing these
    things. We have a--we have the people in place who can help to
    do it. But now we don't have that bipartisan effort, and it
    makes no sense. And it should be overturned, and then continue
    to make sure that we are protecting our children.
        What we are seeing right now, too, is that it is not only
    protecting our kids, but it is also--
         Voice. Rising food prices and--
        Ms. Schakowsky. Oh, yes, food prices. And that is certainly
    something that the President said: The food prices have to go
    down. Instead, they have gone up and the food prices, the
    gouging that was taking place is actually something, once
    again, that the full complement of the Federal Trade Commission
    was looking at and doing something about.
        Also--OK, what is next?
        Voice. Gift to billionaires.
        Ms. Schakowsky. So this is just one big gift to the
    billionaires--to the billionaires that were the ones that were
    at the front page at the--when the President was sworn in.
    Those were the people he had there. And what we need is
    something--the advocates for the individuals.
        And I just want to say to the Commissioners Bedoya and our
    witness right here--what is it?
        Voice. Slaughter.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Hmm?
        Voice. Commissioner Slaughter.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Yes, Commissioner Slaughter, who is here to
    talk about the work that they did. Behind her is her partner.
        So it seems to me that we had in place something that
    worked for consumers, that helped our children, made sure that
    there were funds for the healthcare that they needed. And now
    that the--now the guarantee is gone. And so I just want to say
    that I am very disappointed we didn't hear a word from the
    Republicans about getting rid of them, of the Commissioners,
    didn't hear anything from you, Gus. And--well, you know, how
    many minutes did you take?
        Mr. Bilirakis. No, I took about 38 seconds over.
        Ms. Schakowsky. No, that is not true.
        Mr. Bilirakis. I am giving you over a minute.
        Voice. He gave you a minute and 9 seconds over, yes.
        Ms. Schakowsky. OK, I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. OK. OK. I am going to recognize now the
    ranking----
        Ms. Schakowsky. Ninety minutes over?
        Mr. Bilirakis [continuing]. Excuse me, the chairman of the
    full committee for his 5 minutes. Thank you.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thanks.
        Mr. Bilirakis. You are recognized.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRETT GUTHRIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

        Mr. Guthrie. Thanks, Mr. Chair, thanks for the recognition,
    and I really appreciate the witnesses being here today and all
    the family members here today.
        You know, I wish I could say that we had in place
    everything we needed to keep our children safe online and we
    weren't having this hearing today. And this hearing is about
    children. It is not about what is going on here in Washington,
    DC, and it is about children. It is about the families in this
    audience who have lost children.
        It is about a phone call I had yesterday with the mother of
    Eli Heacock, who took his own life about 2 weeks ago because of
    something that was going on online. He was being scammed. He
    was--I guess the--I didn't even know the term ``sextortion''
    until I started talking with her. I knew what was going on, but
    I didn't know that term. And he was a twin brother, and his--
    he--because he was a preemie, he had a feeding tube, 16 years
    old, had a feeding tube. And his mother said to me that, well,
    at least he didn't have to deal with his feeding tube anymore
    when the medical examiner took it out.
        And so he was a kid that everybody loved that--she said,
    ``I couldn't believe people from five counties showed up to be
    at his funeral. I didn't know he touched that many lives.'' I
    mean, these are who we are here to talk about. This is what
    this hearing is about.
        And I will say to my friend, the ranking member, that we
    want this to be bipartisan. We want these bills to get a
    bipartisan vote. And if everything was in place and had been in
    place, we wouldn't be talking about KOSA and children's online
    safety, which we are going to have a bill this year--or it is
    going to pass as soon as we can get everything we need together
    to do. We are going to do TAKE IT DOWN Act. That is why we are
    having this hearing today, to get this moving quickly. There
    was a bipartisan group of House Members and Senators who met
    with the First Lady.
        And we all saw the lady who was here during the State of
    the Union that was 15 years old and had fake nudes of her--
    somebody took a picture of her, took her face and put it on a
    body, an unclothed body, and sent it out to her entire school.
    Could you imagine being a 14-year-old girl? It wasn't her body,
    but could you imagine being a 14-year-old girl and know that
    everybody in her school thinks that they saw her without her
    clothes on? How horrifying that is.
        There was a lady from--a young lady from New Jersey. The
    same thing happened to her. Those are just a couple of cases.
    Those are a couple of cases, and they happen to people all the
    time.
        And so we are here for a very serious issue, and I really
    hope that--and I will take my good friend, the ranking member,
    up on her request that we make this bipartisan because it
    absolutely has to be bipartisan because it touches everybody
    and everybody's district. And I know some of us on this have
    the phone calls like I had yesterday. And if it doesn't--and, I
    mean, I know it moves everybody. I know it moves everybody
    here.
        So I want to say--is that--the TAKE IT DOWN Act, which--and
    KOSA and all these other bills that protect our children for
    online safety are going to be a focus of this subcommittee, a
    focus on this committee, and we are getting them across the
    House floor. I know TAKE IT DOWN Act has already passed the
    Senate. So we if we move this out of--we have this hearing,
    move it in markup and move it out of committee and it goes to
    the floor, it goes right to the President for signature and
    becomes law.
        And as I said, I wish everything was in place and we
    weren't here today, but we are here today because not
    everything is in place.
        And we have the witnesses that are here that are in the
    front lines. As I said, I have been to the National Center for
    Missing and Exploited Children, and it is actually phenomenal,
    what you do and what you--I remember walking out of there
    going, ``I can't believe you see what you see every day, but
    you do it because you want to protect children.'' That is why
    you are there. And you have to see it because people are doing
    it. If people weren't doing it, you wouldn't see it.
        And so we have to have laws in place. That was the first
    bill that I ever had signed by a President. President Obama
    signed a reauthorization of the National Center for Missing and
    Exploited Children when I was on Ed and then in Labor when I
    first got here.
        So I just want to hopefully use my time to say I know we
    have all been touched by cases in our district. We all care. We
    all want it to be better. We wish we could 100 percent fix it,
    but we know it absolutely has to be better.
        And the predators always try to stay one step ahead of us.
    So we have to have these meetings, these hearings. We have to
    have these bills. We have to continuously and vigorously--as
    long as I am chairman of this committee, we absolutely will
    vigorously look for ways to--so that I don't--so Members of
    Congress or people don't have to--you know, we don't want
    parents to see kids from all over the south central part of
    Kentucky showing up and say, ``I didn't realize that my child
    had touched so many lives.'' We want them to grow up so their
    parents can see how many lives they touch. And that is what
    this hearing is about.
        And I know--hopefully, this is what we focus on. We won't
    focus on a Commission. There is issues for that and time for
    that. What we are here today is to focus on how do we protect
    children.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Guthrie. And I will yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
    Well said. Thank you and God bless you. That is why I am here,
    is to protect our kids. And I am so blessed to have a chair and
    a ranking member that cares so much about our children, to save
    our kids whatever it takes.
        So I--with that I am going to yield 5 minutes to the
    ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone. Thank you.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to set
    the record straight for the people that are here today.
        I know I am not suggesting that the chairman of the full
    committee or the chairman of the subcommittee don't care, but
    let's not kid the people here to suggest that these bills are
    going to become law.
        The bottom line is we passed KOSA and we passed COPPA out
    of this committee in the last session. And the House Republican
    leadership refused to bring these bills to the floor. And you
    know why? They are in the pocket of Big Tech, and the Big Tech
    does not care at all about kids.
        Did you--if you went to the inauguration you may have
    noticed that standing or sitting behind President Trump were
    all the leaders, the CEOs of Big Tech. They tell the
    Republicans what to do.
        Now, sure, our guys here on the committee are well intended
    and want to do things for the public, care about the kids. But
    it doesn't matter because they, the House Republican
    leadership, they are going to do whatever Big Tech wants. Big
    Tech does not want these bills. I appreciate your being here
    today, but it is not going to happen, not as long as Big Tech
    controls what goes on here. And they do.
        Now, for years the members of this committee have worked
    together on a constructive, bipartisan basis to pass a broad
    array of consumer protection legislation. We have regularly
    delegated enforcement authority to the Federal Trade
    Commission, an agency that has consistently been America's
    strongest champion against the abuses of Big Tech. It is the
    FTC that enforces and prevents the abuses of Big Tech. But Big
    Tech's scammers, you know, their exploitation of the Nation's
    children and adults both on- and offline, that is what we see
    every day, and it is getting worse.
        But I find it extraordinary that the Republican majority
    has called this hearing to discuss ways to increase online
    safety, particularly for our Nation's children, while willfully
    ignoring the outrageous, unlawful, and unconstitutional attempt
    just last week by President Trump to fire two duly nominated
    and confirmed members of the FTC. My Republican colleagues must
    understand that President Trump's unlawful attempt to fire the
    FTC Commissioners fundamentally undermines the FTC's ability to
    continue to protect American consumers.
        And yet, rather than taking this threat seriously and
    holding the Trump administration accountable, Republicans
    invited as a witness one of the contributors to Project 2025,
    which is the problem here. This is the playbook the
    administration is using to create an oligarchy that benefits
    billionaires at the expense of everyone else, including little
    kids.
        In creating the FTC, Congress gave the agency broad
    authority to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive acts or
    practices and unfair competition in interstate commerce.
    Congress recognized the FTC needed to be independent from
    political pressure and be structured to ensure a measure of
    consistency across administrations so that it could conduct its
    work in an even-handed manner. And Congress created an agency
    led by Commissioners from both parties who cannot be removed by
    any President on a political whim, but only for, and I quote,
    ``inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.''
        But--and before now only one President had attempted to
    fire an FTC Commissioner without good cause, and the Supreme
    Court made it clear in the FTC Act that Congress expressly and
    properly limited the ability of the executive branch to do so.
    But last week, in attempting to illegally fire Commissioners
    Slaughter and Bedoya, President Trump did not claim that they
    engaged in inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. To
    make such a claim would have been impossible because the
    Commissioners have served with great distinction.
        So I just want to say I guess it is obvious that I am
    outraged by President Trump's illegal attempts to oust these
    two Commissioners. It certainly seems that President Trump's
    biggest donors, including Elon Musk, bought not just a seat to
    the front row at the President's inauguration but also an
    agreement that companies will not face accountability for their
    misdeeds. And unfortunately, committee Republicans are likely
    to ignore this flagrant corruption and violation of the law.
        So look, I just want to say I know that we have today with
    us one of the Commissioners, Commissioner Slaughter. I still
    call her the Commissioner. And behind him is sitting
    Commissioner Bedoya. And I call them the Commissioners because
    they were not fired. They are still the Commissioners.
        And I am hopeful at some point they are going to take this
    to court, and the courts will overturn it as the courts have
    with almost everything that President Trump has done. And the
    question really is, when that happens, is the President going
    to abide by the courts, or is he going to say that ``I don't
    care about the courts because I don't care about the rule of
    law and I don't care about democracy?''
        So we will see at one point, hopefully, the Members on the
    other side of the aisle, you know, stand up and, you know,
    defend the rule of law. But so far, I don't see it,
    unfortunately.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Pallone. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bilirakis. The gentleman yields back. Now I am going to
    recognize the witnesses here today, or at least introduce them.
        We appreciate you being here. Thank you so much for the
    sacrifice you are making, and thank you for doing what you know
    best, protecting our kids. And that is why we are here today.
        First is Ms. Yiota Souras, chief legal officer, National
    Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
        Thanks for being here, ma'am. I appreciate it so much.
        Ms. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, former Commissioner, Federal
    Trade Commission.
        Thanks for your appearance today.
        Ms. Dawn Hawkins, senior advisor, National Center on Sexual
    Exploitation.
        Thank you again for being here today. Thanks for your
    bravery.
        And Ms. Clare Morell, fellow, Ethics and Public Policy
    Center.
        Thank you again for being here. So what I am going to do
    now is I will recognize our first witness, Ms. Souras.
        You are recognized, ma'am, for your 5 minutes of testimony.
        Ms. Souras. Thank you.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
        [Pause.]
        Ms. Souras. Technical issue, thank you.

       STATEMENTS OF YIOTA SOURAS, CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER, NATIONAL
       CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN; REBECCA KELLY
    SLAUGHTER, FORMER COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION; DAWN
          HAWKINS, SENIOR ADVISOR, NATIONAL CENTER ON SEXUAL
       EXPLOITATION; AND CLARE MORELL, FELLOW, ETHICS AND PUBLIC
                             POLICY CENTER

                       STATEMENT OF YIOTA SOURAS

        Ms. Souras. Good morning, Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking
    Member Schakowsky----
        Mr. Bilirakis. Good morning.
        Ms. Souras [continuing]. And members of the subcommittee.
    My name is Yiota Souras, and I am the chief legal officer for
    the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, or
    NCMEC.
        For over 40 years, NCMEC has operated as a nonprofit
    organization to help find missing children, reduce child sexual
    exploitation, and prevent child victimization. I am honored to
    be here today to share NCMEC's perspective on the escalating
    threats to child safety online.
        Congress has designated NCMEC to operate 16 programs
    relating to our mission. In many cases, we are the first call a
    parent or law enforcement makes when a child goes missing or
    has been exploited. As a clearinghouse, we support law
    enforcement in identifying, locating, and recovering child
    victims, we provide child safety education to schools and
    communities, and we support victims and families experiencing
    the trauma of a missing or exploited child.
        Over the past 27 years, we have handled hundreds of
    millions of reports relating to child pornography, or, as it is
    more appropriately referred to, child sexual abuse material or
    CSAM. Based on our work we know that dangers to children online
    are expanding in severity, complexity, and scope. Today we are
    witnessing new threats to children online, including the use of
    generative artificial intelligence to exploit children and
    increases in children being victimized through online
    enticement and financial sextortion.
        We need bipartisan, bicameral congressional action to
    address these new threats. We must provide more remedies to
    child victims, new tools for law enforcement, and enforceable
    regulations that incentivize online platforms to better detect,
    report, and remove child sexual exploitation.
        While the threats are formidable, Congress has a real
    opportunity this term to confront the realities of child sexual
    exploitation and move legislation to protect children. NCMEC
    supports many of the legislative initiatives pending this term,
    including the following.
        The TAKE IT DOWN Act has broad bipartisan support and will
    meaningfully impact child safety. NCMEC is encouraged by
    today's hearing, and urges the committee to pass this bill.
        Law enforcement has informed NCMEC that CyberTipline
    reports containing nude or sexually exploitative images of a
    child often cannot be pursued because they do not constitute
    CSAM. This prevents law enforcement from intervening at the
    earliest indication that a child is being exploited, which is
    especially critical when a child is being enticed or sextorted.
    This legal gap leaves children at risk. TAKE IT DOWN closes
    this gap by criminalizing the knowing publication of these
    images, whether real or created by nudify apps or AI
    technology.
        For child survivors, a primary goal is to ensure their
    images are taken down and not accessible online. The TAKE IT
    DOWN Act will achieve this by establishing a notice and removal
    requirement for online platforms.
        Another important tool to safeguard children online is age
    gating enforced by robust age assurance measures. NCMEC is
    aware of debates regarding whether online platforms or device
    and app store providers should be responsible. NCMEC believes
    that the best approach is an all-of-the-above strategy. We
    support solutions that enforce shared responsibility between
    online platforms and device and app store providers while
    ensuring parents have the necessary tools to help protect their
    children. Online platforms, device and app store providers, and
    parents cannot on their own effectively protect children. Each
    must be involved to ensure children have safe online
    experiences.
        NCMEC also strongly supports the right of a child victim to
    have their day in court and bring a civil lawsuit against all
    parties, including online platforms that host or facilitate
    their abuse. Currently, a child victimized by the endless
    recirculation of CSAM in which they are depicted has no civil
    recourse against an online platform. NCMEC recognizes the
    nuance required to legislate this private right of action. We
    remain available to assist the committee in crafting a remedy
    for as many children as possible that also can garner
    sufficient support to pass Congress.
        Finally, we must update the CyberTipline reporting process.
    Under current law there are no requirements for what
    information an online platform must include in CyberTipline
    reports. This too often leads to companies submitting
    incomplete reports that law enforcement cannot investigate. Too
    many reports are submitted without basic information, including
    the identity and location of the victim and offender and, in
    some cases, even the actual content being reported. Platforms
    must be required to report specific information to the
    CyberTipline and to produce annual transparency reports.
        In closing, thank you again for the opportunity to appear
    before this subcommittee. NCMEC encourages Congress to pass the
    TAKE IT DOWN Act and move legislation that holds online
    platforms accountable, ensures technology does not overtake
    child protection laws, and requires the online community to
    share responsibility. Like you, NCMEC believes that every child
    deserves a safe childhood.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Souras follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Bilirakis. I thank you for your testimony, and we are
    going to pass that TAKE IT DOWN Act, believe me.
        Next we have Ms. Slaughter. You are recognized for 5
    minutes for your testimony.

                  STATEMENT OF REBECCA KELLY SLAUGHTER

        Ms. Slaughter. Thank you. Chairmen Guthrie and Bilirakis,
    Ranking Members Pallone and Schakowsky, and members of the
    subcommittee, good morning. I am Rebecca Kelly Slaughter. I am
    a mother of four, and I have been honored to serve as FTC
    Commissioner for nearly 7 years. In fact, it was exactly 7
    years ago on this date that President Trump first announced my
    nomination.
        Thank you for inviting me to testify about the FTC's vital
    consumer protection work involving online harms and to explain
    how that work is undermined by the President's attempt to fire
    me and Commissioner Bedoya in direct violation of the FTC Act
    and binding Supreme Court precedent.
        Congress created the FTC to protect Americans from unfair
    methods of competition and unfair and deceptive business
    practices. Congress structured the FTC as a bipartisan, five-
    member board whose members may be removed only for cause. The
    FTC's structure emphasizes accountability to you, the people's
    representatives, and it shields the FTC from undue influence or
    political interference so that we can protect American
    children, consumers, workers, and honest businesses without
    fear or favor.
        In my time at the FTC, I have given my all to our vital
    mission, seeking to build bipartisan consensus around issues
    such as children's privacy, the right to repair, and affordable
    medicine. Commissioner Bedoya has worked just as hard. Yet last
    week we became the first FTC Commissioners any President has
    purported to fire since FDR unlawfully removed Commissioner
    Humphrey in 1933. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected that
    move, and its decision has served as the foundation of
    independence not only at the FTC but also at many other
    multimember agencies such as the Federal Reserve.
        So why did the President try to fire us last week? I can
    only assume that the President or his advisers are afraid of
    our voices. My colleague, Chairman Ferguson, a Republican, is
    running the FTC and has his key staff in place. As a minority
    Commissioner, my vote may not change the outcome of any
    particular matter, but I can provide accountability before
    Congress and the public. Removing me and Commissioner Bedoya
    means that we will all remain in the dark if the FTC veers off
    course or if the President orders Chairman Ferguson to treat
    the most powerful companies in the world--like the Big Tech
    firms whose CEOs flanked the President at his inauguration--
    with kid gloves.
        The illegal firings also sent a clear message to the FTC's
    majority Commissioners: You now work under the shadow of
    arbitrary removal by the President.
        Today's oligarchs have surely noticed that it is not the
    independent experts at the FTC or the courts who will decide
    their fate, but the President himself. And I fear what
    corporate lawbreakers will get away with. Commissioner Bedoya
    and I will be challenging our illegal removals. We are working
    to vindicate the law Congress passed because we care deeply
    about the honesty and the integrity of the FTC's work and how
    it affects the American people.
        I need to take a moment to address the FTC staff directly.
        Thank you. I see you. I see your hard work. Keep it up. I
    deeply appreciate it. Take care of each other and do every day
    what you do best: the right thing in the right way for the
    right reasons. We will see you soon.
        Turning specifically to the world of online harms, the FTC
    has done extraordinary work, much of it on a bipartisan basis,
    especially to combat harms to children. But I worry about the
    future of that work. In my written testimony I describe four
    recent actions that may now be imperiled, including protecting
    kids from AI chatbots, updating children's privacy rules,
    ending video games' unfair practice of hooking kids on loot
    boxes, and setting social media services' privacy practices. I
    have the same concern about the entirety of the FTC's work.
        There is one other matter that I worry about most
    immediately that I know is of concern to this committee. The
    FTC staff are currently alleging that the three big pharmacy
    middlemen, the PBMs, illegally inflated the price of insulin.
    That case is pending before the Commission's administrative
    court. Aside from myself and Commissioner Bedoya, no other
    sitting Commissioner can participate in that case. I honestly
    don't know what will happen next.
        On these pressing issues and others, the presence of
    minority Commissioners at the FTC lets us provide transparency
    into our work, which is essential for accountability. As
    Chairman Ferguson said recently, it is helpful for markets, for
    courts, for litigants, for government transparency to have
    people in the other party pointing out abuses and dissents.
    Whether it is a Republican or a Democrat in the White House, we
    will all be worse off without those voices.
        Since President Trump first appointed me to the FTC, I have
    fostered collaborative dialog and compromise with each of my
    Republican colleagues. Commissioner Bedoya and I each swore an
    oath to serve the American people and the Constitution, and we
    will stand by these oaths. I believe the courts will vindicate
    our right to do our jobs. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Slaughter follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Ms. Slaughter.
        Next I will call Ms. Hawkins for her--you are recognized
    for your 5 minutes of testimony. Thank you again for----

                       STATEMENT OF DAWN HAWKINS

        Ms. Hawkins. Thank you, Chairmen Guthrie and Bilirakis.
    Thank you, Ranking Members Pallone and Ms. Schakowsky. I am
    grateful to be here among you. I am Dawn Hawkins with the
    National Center on Sexual Exploitation, a nonpartisan nonprofit
    with the Law Center prosecuting landmark cases against tech
    giants. I have spent 16 years fighting for human dignity. And
    as a mother of five, like millions of parents, this fight is
    deeply personal.
        Tech companies built empires on our kids' backs. They have
    grown more profitable and less accountable. Meanwhile, since
    2019, Congress has held 23 hearings but has passed nothing to
    prevent harm. This can be the Congress that finally says, ``Our
    kids deserve better.''
        It has been nearly 30 years since Congress passed laws to
    protect kids online. The Communications Decency Act, meant to
    help platforms remove sexually explicit content, has been
    distorted into near-total immunity, even for platforms that
    profit from child sexual abuse material. COPPA, meant to shield
    kids under 13 from greedy advertisers, has become a loophole.
    At 13, companies stop protecting youth, right when risks
    skyrocket. And now Congress is considering a 2.0 version that
    still locks parents out of supporting the age group most
    targeted by predators: young teens.
        That is how we got here: an Internet policy built for
    profit, not protection. We must change the legal and economic
    incentives so another generation of children are not
    sacrificed. I want our youth to thrive online, but right now
    this digital world is a danger zone. And it is not by accident,
    it is by design. If I, who live and breathe this work, can't
    protect my kids from the loopholes, how can other parents? And
    yet Big Tech tells us just monitor better, educate more, keep
    your kids offline. But how dare they? Parents aren't failing;
    the system is failing us.
        When Apple's parental controls take 20 steps to set up,
    when Roblox says strangers can't contact your child but
    predators still reach them, when Snap Map shares kids' real-
    time location and YouTube Kids serve sexualized or violent
    content through autoplay, parents aren't just left in the dark;
    we're handed broken flashlights and told to find our way.
        Meanwhile, companies hide behind half-baked tools and PR
    campaigns, but it is an illusion. In the Massachusetts TikTok
    case, internal documents show that their reset button designed
    to help teens escape harmful algorithms promoting suicide,
    eating disorders, and pornography was deliberately hard to use
    and reset after just 200 videos. That is only 10 minutes of
    scrolling.
        Let me tell you what is really happening. A teen boy is
    sextorted after one image. Within hours he spirals into despair
    and he takes his own life. We have heard about Eli, but there
    are 41 others that I know about. His parents will never hear--
    their parents will never hear their laugh again because a
    predator reached them through the screen, and Instagram did
    nothing about it.
        In another case, a girl rejects a boy at school, and he
    retaliates by creating AI-generated CSAM that looked just like
    her, and he uploads it to pornography websites, and she is
    still fighting to get them taken down. But apps that enable
    that kind of abuse are in the app stores rated safe for 4-year-
    olds.
        Another boy is targeted on Snapchat, tricked into creating
    CSAM. His abuse is uploaded to Twitter, viewed 160,000 times.
    Even after submitting proof that he was just a young teenage
    boy, Twitter refused to take it down. And when sued, Twitter--
    now X--argued that profiting from this abuse alongside sex
    traffickers is protected under CDA 230. Our lawyers are
    litigating this case right now.
        These stories are horrific but not rare. Apple and Google
    allow children--the front door to all of this is the app
    stores. Apple and Google allow children to silently sign
    contracts that give apps access to their camera, contacts, and
    location, yet their entire parental control system is based on
    age ratings. They label nudifying tools, chat roulette apps,
    and strip club simulators as safe for 9-year-olds.
        We have to act. Congress has the tools, and we have
    bipartisan solutions. Like car safety, online protection
    requires layers: seatbelts, airbags, and speed limits.
        Five steps:
        We need to reform CDA 230 so platforms can't hide behind
    immunity.
        Two, pass the App Store Accountability Act to empower
    parents before harm occurs with real ratings and verified
    parental consent.
        Three, enact the Kids Online Safety Act to require
    platforms to design with well-being, not addiction, in mind.
        Four, advance the TAKE IT DOWN, PROTECT, NO FAKES, and
    DEFIANCE Acts.
        And five, don't cement the myth that teens become digital
    adults at age 13, as the current COPPA 2.0 would do.
        Predators are thriving and children are dying. It should
    never again be easier to groom a child than to protect one.
    Please don't wait. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Hawkins follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Bilirakis. I want to thank you for the powerful
    testimony. We appreciate it so very much, and we hear you.
    Thank you.
        Next we have Ms. Morell. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Thank you.

                       STATEMENT OF CLARE MORELL

        Ms. Morell. Good morning, Chairman Guthrie, Chairman
    Bilirakis, Ranking Member Pallone, Ranking Member Schakowsky,
    and members of the subcommittee. My name is Clare Morell, and I
    am a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, where I
    direct our Technology and Human Flourishing Project.
        Over the last several years, I have put out reports and
    model legislation for protecting kids online, now implemented
    in many States. I am also the mom of three and author of the
    forthcoming book, ``The Tech Exit: A Practical Guide to Freeing
    Kids and Teens From Smartphones,'' which will be published this
    June.
        I am here today because parents critically need better laws
    to back them up. If you take one thing away from my testimony
    today, let it be this: America's families need immediate action
    from Congress.
        Tech companies want us to believe no more legislation is
    necessary. They have worked to convince us that if parents just
    enable time limits and parental controls, children will be
    safe. But leaving it up to parents is failing America's
    children. Time limits do nothing to address the underlying
    addictive design of these technologies. Their products hijack
    human brain vulnerabilities, especially of developing brains,
    and a brain exposed frequently to social media resembles a
    brain hooked on the most highly addictive drugs.
        Even if a child is only on social media for 15 minutes a
    day, the constant craving it creates means kids are mentally
    consumed by what is happening on the app, even when they aren't
    using it. Kids take the virtual world with them long after they
    leave it.
        Social media's parental controls are also supposed to
    protect teens from bad actors and content, but they really only
    allow parents to set time limits and manage certain settings.
    They give parents no oversight of a child's feed or messages.
    Plus, the teen has to accept the parents' supervision and can
    cancel it at any time. In what sense is that a control?
        Most of the popular apps like Snapchat, TikTok, and Discord
    also block access to third-party controls or filters that a
    parent may purchase, which means when a child can get to
    Pornhub inside of Snapchat in just five clicks without ever
    leaving the app, a parent would never know.
        The ineffectiveness of filters and controls has ushered in
    a tidal wave of online pornography exposure among children. The
    average age of first exposure is now 12. And kids are not just
    seeing it: ER nurses increasingly see children sexually
    assaulting each other.
        America's children are suffering. Parents are exasperated.
    They can't do it alone.
        Recently, a mom found me after an event and with tears in
    her eyes said, ``We did everything right. We had all the
    controls on. We had no idea our daughter got a burner phone and
    got sucked into pornography and dark erotic places on social
    media.'' Leaving it to parents will never work when there is
    zero parental involvement required whatsoever in the creation
    of a social media account or in setting up a device or in
    downloading apps.
        Lastly, parents on their own can't protect kids from the
    collective harms caused by digital technologies. Even if a few
    teens use social media in a school or organization, it affects
    the entire cohort of young people, including those who don't
    use it at all. Time limits and parental controls can't change
    these negative group effects, nor can they protect children
    from seeing porn or beheading videos on another child's
    unprotected device.
        These are collective action problems. They require policy
    solutions. So what should Congress do? I offer a few
    suggestions.
        First, restrict social media out of childhood. Congress
    should age-restrict social media to 16 or 18 years old, just as
    it has age-restricted other addictive and unsafe products for
    kids like alcohol or tobacco.
        Two, require app store age verification and parental
    consent like the App Store Accountability Act. Congress should
    pass a law requiring app stores to verify the age of each user
    and, for minor users, require parental consent for each app
    download or in-app purchase.
        Three, pass a Federal age verification law for pornography
    websites like the SCREEN Act. Nineteen States have now done so,
    but we need protection nationwide. Put the onus back where it
    belongs: on the porn sites rather than parents.
        Four, open up greater legal liability for online platforms
    by reforming section 230 and by further empowering existing
    authorities like the Federal Trade Commission and States'
    attorneys general with tools like greater product design
    liabilities for platforms.
        And five, ensure there is legal accountability for AI so
    that companies will be compelled to make their products safe or
    otherwise pay the costs. Generative AI products should not
    receive section 230 immunity.
        As a mother of three and on behalf of all parents across
    America, we need your help. Thank you for your time, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Morell follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you so very much. I want to thank the
    entire panel for their testimony today, and I want to thank the
    audience for being here today, the parents and the child
    advocates and the children. You really do make a difference.
        All right. I am going to go ahead and start with--yield to
    myself for 5 minutes for questioning, and I am going to start
    with Ms. Souras.
        Thank you again for being here today, and for all the work
    you and your colleagues at NCMEC do. I have no doubt your work
    is directly responsible for saving the lives of countless
    children. We appreciate you so much.
        Heartbreakingly, our country is plagued with criminals who
    search for loopholes to terrorize Americans with nonconsensual
    intimate images. This must stop. The Senate recently passed the
    TAKE IT DOWN Act targeting the abhorrent criminals who engage
    in this practice. How will TAKE IT DOWN protect children from
    these predators and give Americans the tools to remove it from
    online? Please.
        Ms. Souras. Thank you, Chairman Bilirakis, for the
    question.
        I highlighted two of the most important factors of TAKE IT
    DOWN in my written testimony in great detail, but there are
    really two primary ways that TAKE IT DOWN will provide
    additional remedies to protect children online, both from real
    nude, sexually exploitive images, and also the AI-generated
    images, as well.
        So firstly, there is currently a legal gap that makes it
    very difficult for law enforcement to investigate and for
    prosecutors to pursue cases that involve nude or sexually
    exploitative images of a child that do not meet the legal
    definition of child pornography. The legal definition of child
    pornography requires sexually explicit conduct, sexual
    intercourse, and other very extreme forms of sexual
    interaction. But nude and sexually exploitative images often
    fall short of that definition. So crucially, TAKE IT DOWN will
    simply criminalize those images that currently law enforcement
    is struggling to find the proper avenue to investigate and
    pursue.
        In addition to filling that legal gap, as we talked about,
    the TAKE IT DOWN bill will create a formal mechanism for notice
    and takedown, or notice and removal, as it is sometimes
    referred to. At NCMEC we hear from survivors that one of the
    core things that they are seeking is just to ensure their
    images aren't online anymore, to ensure that they can have
    control over those images when they do get circulated again. So
    TAKE IT DOWN will create, really, a process for a victim or
    somebody who is working closely with that victim to alert
    social media, an online platform when a child's image is
    online, and then it will create a process by which that social
    media platform has to be on notice and remove that content
    within a certain period of days.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you so much.
        Next, Ms. Hawkins, I was reading through your testimony.
    And I must say, as a father myself and a grandfather, I really
    appreciate your comments on the difficulties parents face when
    trying to protect their children online. Your testimony
    highlights many options to protect children online, including
    establishing protections in KOSA, giving parents more control
    over what applications are downloaded from app stores, and
    updating rules related to minors' personal information, to name
    just a few.
        So the question is, Why is it important for Congress to
    legislate on multiple fronts as opposed to move one bill that
    tackles only one of these particular issues?
        Ms. Hawkins. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
    question.
        You are absolutely right. We wouldn't protect cars--kids in
    cars with just seatbelts. We need airbags and car seats and
    crash-resistant features because kids' safety deserves layers.
    And the same thing happens for children online. These bills all
    tackle different entry points for harm, such as design flaws,
    parental disempowerment, image-based sexual abuse, and
    predatory contracts. Together they can form a net of
    protection, but alone they leave gaps, and our children fall
    through.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you so very much. Next I am going to
    go ahead and ask this question quickly because I want to stick
    to the 5 minutes.
        Parents need more tools and children need more safeguards.
    So this is for Ms. Morell. What tools and safeguards should
    exist online to protect children?
        I know you have brought this up, obviously, but do you want
    to elaborate briefly? Thank you.
        Ms. Morell. Yes, thank you for the question, and I know we
    are short on time.
        I would just say, as Ms. Hawkins said, we need multiple
    layers. I think a critical tool is just actual parental
    involvement in the creation of a social media account or in
    downloading apps. Right now, parents are not part of that
    process. And so even if a parent wants their child off social
    media, a child can easily enter their birth date, agree to a
    whole host of terms and conditions, enter a contract with a
    tech company, all without a parent's knowledge. And so the
    critical tools I think we need are putting parents back in the
    driver's seat of their kids' online experiences.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you very much.
        And now I will yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the
    subcommittee, Ms. Schakowsky.
        Ms. Schakowsky. I take great pride in having been a
    consumer protection leader for years and years in the State
    legislature and here now in the Congress. But one of the things
    that has been such a help is to have the Federal Trade
    Commission to be the cop on the beat, to make sure that these
    things are happening.
        If this were to go through as the President wanted it--
    which would be illegal, so I am hoping that you will take this
    to court--what would the--how would this affect consumers and
    all the people who need the work that you do? If you could,
    tell me that. Thank you.
        Ms. Slaughter. Thank you. Yes, you are right. The FTC does
    very vital consumer protection work, including advocacy,
    including getting money back to people who have been harmed. In
    fact, last year the FTC returned $337 million back into the
    pockets of people who had it wrongfully taken from them, from
    frauds and scams. And it does that on a bipartisan basis
    through changes in administration, through transitions. That
    bipartisan structure of the FTC that Congress created provides
    enormous value to the people that we serve--the children, the
    parents, the consumers, the workers, the honest businesses--
    because it provides continuity and credibility in our work.
        Let me give you a couple of examples. There are ways in
    which the Commissioners come together and find consensus on
    important cases and important matters that protect consumers.
    So for example, when we are thinking about children, we brought
    a case against Epic, where we got $500 million in penalties for
    Epic--from Epic for how they treated children through Fortnite,
    including how kids were paying--tricked into paying for games.
        And also, importantly to the witnesses in this
    subcommittee, allowing strangers to have access to children to
    communicate through that online game, that was an important
    bipartisan effort of the committee. My former colleague,
    Commissioner Wilson, wrote a very powerful concurrence in that
    case about that work related to children in particular.
        Sometimes we don't find consensus, and that is also
    important for the Commission, because we can help provide
    accountability and transparency to Congress and to the public
    about other ways things could be done, maybe more relief that
    was left on the table or where Commissioners think there was an
    overreach by the Commission. That is an--also an important
    thing to highlight.
        So I think the structure of the FTC that Congress created
    drives towards bipartisan consensus, continuity, credibility,
    and provides accountability and transparency even where that
    consensus isn't reached. And all of that redounds to the
    benefit of the people that we serve.
        Ms. Schakowsky. So what you are saying, though, is that
    because of the ability of the Federal Trade Commission, things
    really can happen. I mean, there are laws that make it safer
    for our kids and our consumers.
        Ms. Slaughter. Yes, that is exactly right. The Federal
    Trade Commission administers the Federal Trade Commission Act,
    the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, and various other
    laws that are designed by Congress to protect children, to
    protect consumers. And we want that administration to be done
    without fear or favor, impartially, based on the facts and the
    law in front of the Commission, not based on fear of removal
    for failure to do a favor for a political donor or one of the
    Big Tech companies that don't particularly care for our
    aggressive enforcement approach.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Well, I want to thank you, Congresswoman
    Slaughter--Congresswoman? No, that is not correct--for the work
    that you do. And let us hope that the courts will decide that
    the Federal Trade Commission is the appropriate way that we
    protect our consumers. And you do it in a bipartisan way,
    except that right now the Democrats have been excluded from
    this, so we have to fight back. Thank you very much.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. I thank the gentlelady. And next we have--we
    are going to recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr.
    Guthrie from the great State of Kentucky, for his 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thanks, and I appreciate the ranking member
    saying ``Congresswoman Slaughter,'' because she was a great
    lady. She represented upstate New York, but you could tell from
    her accent she was from Appalachia, Kentucky, couldn't you? So
    thanks for that.
        You know, getting back to, as you mentioned--thanks, Ms.
    Hawkins, for mentioning Eli. And you look at--as a parent and a
    grandparent now, I obviously have responsibilities and roles.
    But what you--we saw with Eli was they think it was just a one-
    time, as you mentioned--into one evening, it happened in one
    evening. And so we all need to be alert, but you can't be alert
    100 percent of every second of the day, 100 percent of the
    time. So it is important that we have these new laws in place.
    And, you know, Eli was mentioned--he was a twin, so he was a
    preemie. And I had mentioned some of the things he had to live
    with in life. And so I didn't mention that, you know, his
    sister is now spending the first 2 weeks of her 16 years on
    Earth without him. So if you think about that, just all the
    pain that this has caused. And, you know, just--it is hard to
    imagine what families have gone through.
        And so, Ms. Souras and Ms. Hawkins, would you just share
    how the TAKE IT DOWN Act would help us hold these people
    responsible?
        Other laws--you said KOSA, TAKE IT DOWN Act, particularly,
    would hold these people responsible. I will start with Ms.
    Souras, if you would.
        Ms. Souras. Thank you, Chairman Guthrie.
        Absolutely, TAKE IT DOWN, as I described earlier, is really
    going to fill for children this crucial legal gap that exists
    right now. I think people often think that, you know, any image
    of a child that may be exploitative in some way, that may
    include some nudity automatically is child pornography. And
    under the law that is actually not accurate. Child pornography
    is a very severe, extreme form of sexual exploitation. It
    requires sexually explicit conduct.
        But we see now this proliferation, especially in enticement
    cases and financial sextortion cases, as you mentioned with
    your constituent, and absolutely with AI-generated imagery we
    see nude and sexually exploitative imagery proliferating more,
    and there simply aren't legal avenues to address this
    appropriately. So we need TAKE IT DOWN. We need to fill that
    legal gap. We need to give law enforcement tools and
    prosecutors tools so that they can intervene at the earliest
    possible moment that a child is being enticed or sextorted or
    abused online, and they can prevent further abuse.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
        Ms. Hawkins?
        Ms. Hawkins. And I will add to that the TAKE IT DOWN Act
    would bring significant hope to individuals like Eli or Gavin
    Guffey, Mr. Fry in South Carolina.
        A lot of these youth feel hopeless because we are told
    again and again if you make a mistake, if you take a photo of
    yourself, if you share it online and it gets out there, there
    is nothing that you can do. And these predators, they just--
    that is what they use, that kind of desperation. And this would
    give law enforcement and these youth--and adults, frankly,
    too--hope that we can get--we could do something about it, and
    we can take this kind of abuse content down.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK. Ms. Morell, do you have a comment on that,
    as well?
        Ms. Morell. I would agree. I would agree that I think I am
    really concerned about the threats of AI as the kind of next
    wave of threats to our kids online, and I think that we need
    solutions that are going to make it really clear that there
    will be consequences if AI products are used to harm kids.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK. So--and also the three of you again, so it
    requires websites and social media platforms, the TAKE IT DOWN
    Act, to remove nonconsensual intimate images within 48 hours of
    requests, finally giving survivors and their families--giving
    them a new avenue for recourse.
        As an advocate who works with many of these families, can
    you speak to why providing new notice and take-down tools are
    so critical?
        Do you want to start, Ms. Souras?
        Ms. Souras. Absolutely. Thank you.
        As I mentioned earlier, for many survivors it is really not
    about criminal remedies, it is not about prosecuting somebody,
    it is not about going to court with their own civil lawsuit. It
    is simply about making sure those images do not continue to
    circulate, are not online. So notice and take-down programs--
    NCMEC operates one. Obviously, we are a nonprofit. It is a
    voluntary initiative that we operate. Social media platforms
    can comply with our request or not when we serve a notice and
    take-down on a company--
        Mr. Guthrie. Do you have instances of giving a take-down
    notice and being told no?
        Ms. Souras. We have, actually, on our website a list of
    companies that are not responsive or take a--an unacceptably
    long time to respond.
        Mr. Guthrie. So that is publicly available. That is good.
        Ms. Souras. Absolutely. I am happy to provide those details
    after the hearing.
        But what the notice and take-down provision within TAKE IT
    DOWN Act does is it codifies that. So it provides some teeth.
    It provides a formal process. It requires and puts companies on
    notice that they must actually engage.
        Mr. Guthrie. Ms. Hawkins?
        Ms. Hawkins. We have also requested--our attorneys--that
    content be removed, and the companies ignore. Google, for
    example, told us that a victim of sex trafficking--her
    trafficker is in prison--that there were no signs of coercion
    in the material, so they wouldn't remove it.
        You know, we need the TAKE IT DOWN Act because otherwise
    this content just proliferates more and more. I am a victim
    myself of image-based sexual abuse. Now that my kids are about
    to get online, I live in absolute fear about what my kids are
    going to see about me.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. Thank you for showing--my time is
    up, but for the importance of this. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. I thank the chairman. Thank you. The
    gentleman yields back. Now I recognize the ranking member of
    the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for his 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As I have said, President Trump's attempted illegal firings
    of the Democratic FTC Commissioners is not only a blatant
    violation of the law but also puts American consumers in danger
    of kneecapping the very agencies designed by Congress to
    protect all of us from unfair and deceptive business practices
    and unfair methods of competition.
        And I have to say again that I am disappointed that my
    Republican colleagues, including those on this committee, have
    remained silent as the President threatens the independence of
    this agency. And Republicans on this committee have routinely
    said that they care deeply about protecting all people, and
    especially our kids, from online harm. I heard you all say that
    today. But now you remain silent as the agency that protects
    consumers is threatened.
        And make no mistake, this is just the beginning. President
    Trump has sent a clear message that he is willing to ignore the
    rule of law and Supreme Court precedent to benefit himself and
    his billionaire buddies. So Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask--
    oh, is he not--Chairman Guthrie is not here, right? No.
        Let me ask Chairman Bilirakis if--are you planning on
    holding an oversight hearing or any kind of hearing to demand
    answers from the Trump administration about this illegal action
    by the President with regard to the FTC Commissioners that I
    believe harms consumers and harm our children? Are you planning
    on any kind of hearing on that issue, if you will?
        Mr. Bilirakis. I can--yes, I don't have--I have to speak
    with the full committee chair, and I would be happy to discuss
    it with you, as well. The three of us can get together. As a
    matter of fact, we can even talk to the ranking member of
    committee, the subcommittee. So, yes, we can have those
    discussions.
        Mr. Pallone. All right, I appreciate that. I am concerned
    that, as President Trump escalates his attacks on our democracy
    and gleefully destroys the institutions created by Congress to
    benefit all Americans, I just wonder if there is any action
    that President Trump could take that will result in an
    oversight hearing on this committee, because I do believe that
    part of this committee's responsibility is to review actions
    taken by the President, regardless of the fact that he is a
    Republican.
        And the illegal attempted firing of Commissioners Slaughter
    and Bedoya, I think, is just the beginning. And if my
    Republican colleagues refuse to speak out, they are going to
    show everyone that they are willing to put the profits of Big
    Tech billionaires ahead of kids' online safety.
        So let me go to Commissioner Slaughter. In your view, if
    this illegal move is allowed to stand, is anything stopping
    President Trump from removing any sitting Commissioner,
    including those from the Republican Party, for launching
    investigations he does not agree with or refusing to dismiss
    cases against his crooked Big Tech buddies?
        I know you got into this a little in your opening, but you
    got 2 minutes if--you know, take the 2 minutes, if you can, to,
    you know, to talk more about it, if you will.
        Ms. Slaughter. Thank you, sir. You are correct. The same
    constitutional and statutory principle that protects me from
    removal protects majority Commissioners from removal, protects
    members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, protects
    members at many other agencies. And so, if I can legally be
    removed in violation of the plain language of the statute, I
    don't think there is anything that would stop other
    Commissioners from being removed, including the majority
    Commissioners.
        And I think it is worth pointing out, relevant to the
    conversation we are having here today, I agree with so much of
    what the witnesses at this table are saying. They are
    highlighting incredibly important issues. My colleague,
    Commissioner Bedoya, has been a particular thought leader on
    the issue of kids and the attention economy and online
    addictive behavior. This is something we care incredibly deeply
    about.
        And in fact, in January of this year we took the unusual
    step of making public the fact that the FTC referred to the
    Department of Justice a complaint against Snap for the harms
    caused by its AI chatbot directed at children. My colleague--
    now Chairman--Ferguson dissented, and expressed concerns about
    the First Amendment rights of those chatbots. That is an
    important conversation that we can have, that we can have on a
    bipartisan Commission.
        But the underlying concern about the harms to kids as these
    technologies are developing is enormously important, requires
    bipartisan attention. And I really worry that not only is the
    Commission deprived of the voices of myself and Commissioner
    Bedoya, but that the Republican Commissioners at the FTC will
    similarly feel pressure to avoid taking actions that may be
    consistent and required by the law but unpopular with some of
    the President's supporters.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you so much.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. The gentleman yields back. Now I will
    recognize the vice chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Fulcher, for
    his 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have
    to admit I might be a little bit confused if I am in the right
    committee hearing. We have seen how--seem to have got
    sidetracked into Presidential branch personnel discussions and
    food prices. So I do have some questions, but they have to do
    with kids' online safety and that subject matter.
        Am I in the right place? Do I have that subject matter?
        Mr. Bilirakis. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Fulcher. All right. Thank you.
        So Ms. Morell, this question has to do with section 230
    immunity. And we have had a lot of discussions on that in the
    past, but I would like to just talk with you for a minute about
    how section 230 immunity protection should apply when you
    insert an AI algorithm then to that. This is uncharted
    territory for us.
        And could you just--do you believe that that immunity
    should protect--should--protection should be in place if there
    is an AI algorithm that is clearly changing the content or
    redirecting it?
        Ms. Morell. I do not. I think it is clear that AI products
    are not hosting third-party speech. Section 230 was meant to
    protect platforms for liability for hosting third-party
    content. AI chatbots, AI tools are actually a product. It is
    product design. It is not meant to be protected by section 230,
    and it is not hosting another person's speech.
        It is a computer-generated product. People are training it,
    training the AI on certain data, and they--it is being taught
    to recognize certain patterns. And so the output of AI is
    actually a just amalgamation of data that has been recognized
    by a process.
        And so to me, that clearly falls under product design, not
    under section 230 immunity, which is meant to protect platforms
    from liability for hosting the speech of other people.
        Mr. Fulcher. So those comments make sense to me, and I
    would parallel your thought process there.
        Our challenge as a legislative body is trying to put this--
    it--how do we put this into a legislative format? And if we are
    able to do that, how do we make that enforceable?
        And I realize this might be out of your lane, but if you
    have any comments on that, I would be interested in hearing
    enforceability.
        Ms. Morell. Yes. My brief comment would be I think a very
    narrow solution would just be a clarification, and a bipartisan
    bill was introduced in the Senate to this effect last Congress
    that would just clarify that section 230 immunity should not
    apply to generative AI. And what that means, then, is that
    there is a path through litigation for these companies to be
    held accountable for harms caused by those products.
        And so it just--it doesn't actually need to necessarily
    prescribe all the actions, but it just opens up legal
    liability. And that is what we see in America, that the way we
    typically hold private companies accountable for harms to
    consumers is through channels of litigation. And so I think
    having that open would compel AI companies to make sure that
    their products are not----
        Mr. Fulcher. OK.
        Ms. Morell [continuing]. Harming consumers.
        Mr. Fulcher. Ms. Souras, just your perspective. Same
    question. Section 230 immunity, AI intervention there, but in
    the lens of sexual exploitation. Your comments or thoughts?
        Ms. Souras. Absolutely. So I definitely join in the opinion
    of my colleague at the end of the panel table.
        I would also add that AI is actually joining as a partner
    in content creation. So in addition to not--simply not hosting
    third-party content, it is part of the creative process. We see
    offenders going on using text or image-based AI tools to really
    create the vision that they have for what they want to see,
    what kind of sexual exploitation they want to see of a child,
    to engage with AI sexually as a child.
        So again, AI clearly is beyond the scope of section 230
    because, again, not hosting but actually creating content with
    you as the user.
        My view--and I would--you know, would want to give it a
    little more deliberation, I don't think that needs to be
    clarified within section 230. I think we need to see lawsuits
    filed, and we need to see how courts will address this. Because
    when you look at what AI is doing, again, it is clearly outside
    the scope of what section 230 was intended to--
        Mr. Fulcher. So I am going to stay with you. We have only
    got 30 seconds left. But on the same vein, deepfakes, and I am
    concerned about the impact of that. Is there a legislative or--
    is there a role for Congress in perhaps identifying digital
    forgeries, or quick comments on deepfakes and how we might deal
    with that with enforcement?
        Ms. Souras. Absolutely. I would just highlight three items.
    So we are dealing with criminal provisions in TAKE IT DOWN. I
    think there also is room for Congress to look at civil
    remedies, as well, for victims who are abused or exploited
    through deepfakes.
        But I also think Congress has a real--a very important role
    in looking at preventative measures. How are companies, AI
    companies, being allowed to red team, to use technology to
    ensure their products are safe before they rush to market?
        Mr. Fulcher. OK, thank you for that.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. I appreciate it very much. Thanks for
    yielding back, and now I will recognize my friend and partner
    in the KOSA legislation that we are going to keep pushing
    forward, get it across the finish line this time, and I will
    recognize my fellow Floridian, Ms. Castor, for her 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Chairman Bilirakis, and you
    deserve a lot of credit for helping to hammer out the Kids
    Online Safety Act and moving the legislation through committee
    last year.
        You know, for many years the committee has worked on this,
    because the online harms to kids, the exploitation is plain as
    day to parents and families across the country. Big Tech
    platforms use their manipulative designs to addict kids to
    their products and funnel them to harmful or exploitative
    content. They collect massive amounts of personal information,
    some of it incredibly sensitive, to fuel their algorithms,
    always elevating their profits over kids' safety. That is why I
    partnered with Representative Bilirakis and Tim Walberg,
    leaders in the Senate, a lot of the advocates in the in the
    audience today to help establish safeguards for kids online.
        KOSA would provide young people and parents with the tools,
    safeguards, transparency needed. It is a design code. COPPA,
    the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, bans the Big Tech
    platforms from collecting the private data. You need both
    working together. COPPA, remember, would ban advertising
    targeted to kids and teens, create an eraser button for parents
    and kids to eliminate that personal information online.
        But both rely on a strong Federal Trade Commission to
    enforce the law.
        The bills passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee
    on September 18 of last year. So we pressed the Speaker to
    bring them up for a vote. It was passed bipartisan in the
    Senate, over 60 votes--probably, I think it was about 90 votes,
    September 18. October we pressed the Speaker, Mike Johnson, and
    Steve Scalise to bring it up. We pressed in November. Parents
    and advocates kept on it. They pressed in December and are
    demoralized today because the Republican Speaker and majority
    leader blocked it, even in the face of the Surgeon General's
    report, the higher rates of suicides, all the tragedies that
    are all too plain today, the pornography that is so
    exploitative online and all of the addiction.
        So then the parents, I have to say, were very dejected, as
    many of us were, at the inauguration to see these Big Tech CEOs
    have a front-row seat at President Trump's swearing in.
        And then what happens last week? The President takes the
    cops off the beat, the folks who are charged with enforcing
    kids' safety laws, privacy laws. It is illegal. What they have
    done to Commissioners Bedoya and Slaughter is illegal.
        The law that Congress passed years ago directed the
    Commission to be bipartisan, independent. It is an enforcement
    agency to protect Americans from unfair and deceptive
    practices. And now they just want to throw the law out the
    door.
        And yes, we can talk about the importance of passing new
    legislation here in this hearing, but if you take the cops off
    the beat, you give the Big Tech CEOs a front-row seat to the
    inauguration, you block the KOSA and COPPA that was hammered
    out over years of work in this committee, you can--you know,
    how do you restore trust on this? And it is going to be up to
    this committee to stand up for parents and young people, and
    stand up to these Big Tech CEOs who want to control our lives.
    And they are willing to sacrifice our kids' well-being for
    their profits.
        And I ask my Republican colleagues, please join us in this.
    Say something about taking the cops off the beat from the FTC.
        Commissioner Slaughter, thank you so much. You were working
    with your colleagues to address youth safety and privacy
    online. What do you recommend now going forward for this
    committee? And how can we restore the cops on the beat back at
    the FTC?
        Ms. Slaughter. Thank you. I agree with you, and I agree
    with the witnesses here that there are important laws that
    Congress needs to pass. I have been really concerned about
    whether the statutory tools the FTC right--has right now are up
    to the job, and I have advocated for privacy legislation and
    other tools.
        But the really important question is, How will those be
    administered? If Congress can pass the laws, how will they be
    administered, and will they be administered without fear or
    favor, which is what every American deserves, and especially
    what every parent sitting in this audience today deserves. I
    can't tell you how deeply moved I am, personally, by the
    stories that we are hearing and how very much I want to be able
    to get back to work on behalf of these parents and other
    parents out there.
        We need an FTC that is fully composed to be able to do that
    administration of the laws without fear or favor and help
    protect our kids.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. I thank the gentlelady. The gentlelady
    yields back. Now I will recognize Ms. Harshbarger from the
    great State of Tennessee for her 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
    thank the witnesses for being here today. I want to thank you
    for speaking up for our kids.
        You know, if the examples against innocent children that
    you provided in your testimony do not give us Members a
    righteous anger about this issue, then we better--we just
    better check our very soul. And as a parent--and I know there's
    parents in the audience who have gone through this, and I am so
    sorry for you because it could happen to anybody, don't ever
    think that you are exempt from this happening--young people,
    you listen. If you read the testimony of what happened to these
    children, you probably wouldn't let them online or you probably
    wouldn't get online.
        You know, as a parent you try to make sure your child is
    safe and kept away from harm. But it is very clear, as
    technology continues to accelerate, just how difficult it is to
    protect your kids from these predators.
        And if you--listen, if they are sick, depraved, possessed,
    and dangerous criminals, they are what they are. And if you
    really, really want to know what I think they should do with
    these once law enforcement catches one, then you see me after
    this hearing is over, and I will be happy to tell you what I
    think.
        I want to start with Ms. Souras. Your very powerful
    testimony gave horrifying accounts of children being preyed
    upon by adult sex offenders. With the data already available,
    how can platforms better identify users who are posing as
    children?
        Ms. Souras. Thank you for the question.
        In every other industry there is a concept of know your
    customer. It is what provides safety and compliance. And that
    simply does not exist online.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
        Ms. Souras. It does not exist for social media companies.
    So, you know, that is certainly first and foremost. They need
    to know who is getting online, how they are registering, if
    they are representing themselves truthfully, whether they are
    an adult, whether they are a teenager.
        We have seen in some of these sextortion cases that
    individuals are creating profiles, you know, grown men, adult
    men are creating profiles indicating that they are a 15-, 16-
    year-old girl. They are allowed to post photos and create a
    whole persona online that, to a child--especially a child who
    is very trusting, who has only been online for a few years--
    seems very authentic.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
        Ms. Souras. So, you know, I would definitely say they need
    to know their customer. There needs to be transparency
    reporting around how social media platforms are accomplishing
    that task.
        And there also needs to be age assurance. I think all of us
    have touched on that issue a little bit, that there is still a
    lot to be determined around how best to effectuate that, but we
    need to create spaces for children online that are safe. You
    know, we allow children to get online, have private
    conversations 24 hours a day with whoever is online, exchange
    content, videos, and images. We would never allow that in real
    life.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
        Ms. Souras. So we need to understand the environment, and
    we need to work together to accomplish that.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Do you think this information could prove
    an asset for parents monitoring their child's online activity
    to ensure they are interacting with their peers and not some
    sick, perverted monster who deserves to be locked up until
    Judgment Day?
        Ms. Souras. Absolutely. I think all of us, you know, agree
    that parents play a role here, but tech companies need to meet
    them, I would say, more than halfway. They need to provide
    tools that are comprehensible, that are easy----
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
        Ms. Souras [continuing]. That are accurate, and they need
    to provide transparency so parents actually understand how the
    algorithms work and how the apps work.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. You know, it is sad to say, though, that,
    you know, I interacted with middle schoolers and taught Sunday
    school for 24 years, and I used to say it was a fatherless
    society. But it is a parentless society in a lot of ways. And
    some of those children don't always have a parent who will
    protect them.
        I understand that the National Center for Missing and
    Exploited Children and law enforcement are interested in
    prioritizing quality of reports over pure quantity, and that
    one thing that has helped with that is bundling of reports.
    Could you tell us a little bit why that is so important, and
    how could we encourage more companies to do that?
        Ms. Souras. Absolutely. So the process of receiving
    CyberTipline reports at NCMEC really--if I can just give a
    brief explanation, we are the--operate the online reporting
    mechanism for reports regarding child sexual exploitation. So
    we are flooded with tens of millions of reports from social
    media companies. And then we provide those reports to law
    enforcement--around the world, but, of course, domestically,
    Federal and State local law enforcement.
        There has been a really, I would say, an issue in recent
    years, as companies are increasing the volume of reports, that
    reports that are really related regarding the same image,
    regarding the same incident, regarding the same timeframe have
    been reported one by one, as separate reports.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
        Ms. Souras. That creates a tremendous burden for law
    enforcement. So we were very gratified this year that Meta,
    which is one of the larger reporters--it is certainly one of
    the larger social media companies--agreed to start bundling
    incidents that are related. It reduces the work burden and the
    time that law enforcement has----
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
        Ms. Souras [continuing]. To consume on those reports.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. OK, very good. And I think I am over my
    time, so I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. I thank the gentlelady. Now I recognize my
    friend from the State of Florida, Mr. Soto, for his 5 minutes
    of questioning.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to all the
    families for coming today.
        Sexual exploitation, bullying online is a horrific threat
    to our families across the Nation. Democrats, we support KOSA,
    we voted for it already last term. We also support the TAKE IT
    DOWN Act, and we stand with the families here today and the
    excruciating stories that you have had to tell us.
        The reason why we are so furious is because President Trump
    just illegally fired two of the five Federal Trade Commission
    Commissioners. They are here today, both Ms. Slaughter and Mr.
    Bedoya. The FTC is already charged with protecting kids online.
    And so when these folks are fired it is just outrageous to see
    no one say anything about it. We are talking about standing
    with these families, and then none of you will stand up to
    President Trump when he just dismantled the very Commission
    that is charged with doing this stuff.
        When KOSA is passed, when TAKE IT DOWN is passed, it will
    be the FTC that will be enforcing it. That is why we are so
    frustrated today, because the Commission is now paralyzed. Our
    Republican colleagues say nothing because they are scared of
    the President. So they express sympathy but do nothing about
    restoring the Commission.
        The second concern is we passed KOSA last term, and it
    never made it to the House floor. It was killed by Speaker
    Johnson. And then the Internet privacy bill, we even had a
    hearing set for it to be voted out of the committee, and that
    hearing was pulled back in front of the entire Capitol--what an
    embarrassment--because the powers that be didn't want this bill
    to pass.
        Internet privacy should have passed. It passed when we had
    the House. And we need the Speaker, we need the chairman and
    others to stand with us on this. Sympathy is not enough.
    Hearing all your stories is not enough. And then when we see
    tech billionaires having better seats than Republican Governors
    at Trump's inaugural, that does not inspire confidence.
        So we have brought you here to hear your stories, and we
    appreciate it. My biggest fear is that nothing is going to
    happen again, and that would be an absolute travesty. We--these
    families deserve to be heard and not used for hearing their
    stories, sound sympathetic, have a listening ear, and then
    nothing happens.
        Commissioner Slaughter, it is really important as--that we
    address all the families that are here today. The FTC is
    already charged with whatever laws are already on the books to
    help protect children online and--so it would be great to kind
    of explain what--the work that you all were doing right before
    you were fired.
        Ms. Slaughter. Sure, thank you. I agree with you about the
    importance of thinking about the families that are here today
    and the people that they are representing. I--it is such a
    critical issue. It moves me so deeply as a human, as a parent,
    and as a Federal Trade Commissioner. And I share the view of
    the parents on this panel and in this room that parents can do
    their absolute best--I try to do my absolute best for my
    children, and like some of my fellow panelists, I am pretty
    expert in this stuff, and it is still really hard for me.
        So what we need is for the Government to empower Government
    agencies to make sure that the onus is on the companies to keep
    children safe in the first instant. And in order to do that
    well, we need the Government agencies to not be afraid of those
    companies.
        Mr. Soto. And when we pass KOSA and you are reinstated as a
    Commissioner after we win in court, what can you then do to
    help enforce these laws to protect these families?
        Ms. Slaughter. Well, I can do the kinds of things I have
    been doing for the last 7 years as an FTC Commissioner, which
    is taking on the biggest companies in the world without fear or
    favor, based on the facts and based on the law.
        I voted to bring lawsuits against Meta. I have--involving
    privacy practices, including involving kids. I voted for a
    settlement with Amazon over Alexa's collection of children's
    voice data that was illegal.
        I worked with my colleague, Commissioner Wilson, a
    Republican, and my former colleague, Commissioner Chopra, a
    Democrat, to set up a study on social media and video streaming
    services' privacy practices to provide transparency to the
    public, to this committee, to Congress about all of the data
    that is collected by these companies and how it should be--how
    it is used. And that study was finally published this fall.
        We brought cases I mentioned against Epic involving
    communication with children and tricking children into
    payments. I referenced in my testimony a case we brought just
    last fall against Genshin Impact for loot boxes that trick kids
    and get them hooked into gambling with their parents' money
    online.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you for the extensive things you are doing.
        Members, these families don't need our sympathies. They
    have come here today for action. And I plan to vote to support
    these bills.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and I
    believe Mr. Obernolte is next.
        So we will ask you to stick within the 5 minutes if you
    can, and I will recognize you for your 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Mr. Obernolte. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am so happy
    that we are having this hearing because it is on a topic that
    is deeply personal to me and, I think, incredibly important.
        Particularly talking about the TAKE IT DOWN Act, I had the
    honor of last year leading the House AI Task Force, and if you
    read our report you know that the issue of nonconsensual
    intimate imagery is one of what we felt is the most pressing
    issues that needs to be dealt with immediately.
        And we feel like this is low-hanging fruit. Everyone ought
    to be able to agree that this is unacceptable. This is a
    problem that is being faced by youth across our country, and I
    am hoping that maybe we can be an example here where--we are in
    an era of intense political polarization, but I think this is
    something we can do on a bipartisan basis. And so I am really
    happy that we are having the discussion about that today.
        Also, the App Store Accountability Act, I think, is an
    important piece of legislation. I want to talk about that a
    little bit. I ran a development studio that did app development
    for a number of years, and so it is--this is something I know a
    little bit about. And this bill needs some work.
        You know, one of the points I wanted to make is that, when
    we are talking about the difference between putting obligations
    on app stores and putting obligations on developers, most
    developers of apps are not professional companies like the one
    I ran. They are a couple of people making an app for fun in a
    garage. And so, to the extent that you can, you want to put
    applications--you want to put obligations on the app stores,
    not the developers. And I will give you a couple of concrete
    examples.
        There is specific language in the bill about when
    developers are required to use the application programing
    interface of an app store--we call it an API--and there is no
    need to make developers do that. The app store can enforce
    those restrictions. For example, you wouldn't need, as a
    developer, to have to enforce an age limit. If you are saying
    this application is for adults only, the app store can enforce
    that and not allow children to even launch the app. That is
    what you want to do.
        The same thing with purchase restrictions, same thing with
    time usage restrictions. So I am hopeful that we can tighten up
    some of that language and make it clear where those obligations
    lie as this bill moves forward.
        And then lastly, I just wanted to spend a minute talking
    about enforcement, because we have heard some pretty compelling
    testimony this morning about the need for reforming section
    230. I think someone brought that up. Several witnesses just
    talked about private right of action. And I think we need to be
    very cautious about that because we have a number of different
    tools in our toolbox when it comes to enforcement, and I don't
    think anyone would agree that the world would be a better place
    if we just sued each other more often, right?
        That is the last resort. We want people to follow the law
    and be good actors without having to resort to using the courts
    to enforce the law.
        I--along the years of my public service earlier I served as
    the mayor of a small city. I think a number of us on the dais
    have had that honor. And I had an occasion where an abusive law
    firm rolled through town and sued a number of our businesses
    under the Americans with Disabilities Act for little minor
    technical violations. And so I saw, you know, the flip side of
    this, when lawsuits are used abusively.
        And I think what it taught me is that companies that want--
    that have a profit motive for bringing these lawsuits are not
    suing Big Tech. You know, they are suing the mom-and-pop people
    that don't have the resources to defend themselves.
        So what I am saying is this should be the last resort. We
    have better tools. Civil penalties is great. FTC enforcement
    under--as an unfair or deceptive business practice is a
    powerful tool. Empowering State attorney generals is a powerful
    tool. Private right of action is a last resort, and I hope we
    can keep that in mind as we move forward, because what we don't
    want to create is another ADA that creates a profit incentive
    for abusive lawsuits against Americans and American companies.
        But I want to thank everyone for your very heartfelt
    testimony this morning. I have really enjoyed the hearing, and
    I am looking forward to working particularly with the TAKE IT
    DOWN Act to resolve this critically important issue.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. I appreciate it. Thank you for that valuable
    information. I appreciate it. The gentleman yields back.
        Now I recognize Mrs. Trahan for her 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Mrs. Trahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
    families who are here today sharing their stories. I want to
    thank our witnesses, particularly FTC Commissioner Slaughter,
    for being here to testify today. I also saw FTC Commissioner
    Bedoya earlier, sitting behind the witnesses, and I want to
    thank him for coming.
        Our Democratic FTC Commissioners have been through a lot in
    the past week, and I applaud them for showing up to shed light
    on the administration's latest assault on independent agencies
    tasked with protecting hard-working Americans from corporate
    abuses. The President's unlawful actions don't just hinder the
    Commissioners from doing their work. These reckless and lawless
    decisions will directly hurt consumers and prevent this
    committee from enacting strong, effective, and enforceable laws
    to protect Americans, especially our children, online.
        The FTC has--was purposefully designed as an independent
    agency by Congress. Lawmakers understood the incompatibility of
    partisanship and consumer protection, and sought to safeguard
    against powerful interests influencing the work of the agency.
        The FTC's current Republican chair, Andrew Ferguson,
    understands the importance of independence, as well. In his
    nomination hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee,
    Ferguson testified that ``consumer protection and competition
    are not partisan issues.'' In an interview with the Mercatus
    Center last year, Ferguson explained that independence
    encourages careful deliberation and allows for the Commission
    to ``test theories internally before marching them out the
    door.''
        Chair Ferguson makes a fundamental point that President
    Trump clearly does not understand: Consumer protection is not
    and should never be a partisan endeavor. It requires the best
    minds to come together to protect those who would otherwise be
    abused by powerful corporate actors.
        The subject of today's hearing is online safety,
    particularly for our kids. I have been outspoken about holding
    Big Tech accountable, protecting consumers' personal data, and
    demanding transparency from online service providers. So too
    have many of--have my Republican colleagues with whom I have
    worked on these issues over the years.
        But I must ask the obvious question: How can we possibly
    legislate to protect Americans online when the FTC--the cops on
    the beat enforcing Federal competition and consumer protection
    laws--lacks its independence? What does it mean for independent
    governance if the FTC's sitting Commissioners can be
    arbitrarily fired by a capricious president?
        And while we talk about President Trump's illegal attempt
    to block dedicated consumer protectors from completing their
    work, we must also acknowledge the precarious environment in
    which FTC employees are currently doing their work. President
    Trump's illegal attempt to fire Commissioners Slaughter and
    Bedoya adds further uncertainty to a work culture laden with
    looming fears of mass layoffs and forced relocations.
        Preserving the FTC's independence while increasing its
    capacity should be a goal shared by every member of this
    committee, especially if we hope to pass meaningful legislation
    to protect consumers and kids online.
        Commissioner Slaughter, I only have one question for you
    today, and you can take the entire balance of the time to
    answer it: How important is a strong and independent FTC for
    watchdogging online harms, especially threats to consumer
    privacy?
        Ms. Slaughter. Thank you. Excuse me. It is critically
    important. It is critically important. There is not another
    Federal agency that is doing this work. There is not a
    substitute for the FTC in terms of policing the world's most
    powerful corporations, and policing them without fear or favor.
        I think there is also no substitute for the FTC in terms of
    the work we do to provide transparency and accountability
    through our market studies, through our research program,
    through our testimony to Congress. That is work that I have
    been so honored to do, first as a minority Commissioner, then
    as a majority Commissioner, now as a minority Commissioner
    again. I have seen all sides of it, and I have seen the real
    benefits that the American people get from having a balance of
    perspectives on the FTC the way Congress designed and the way
    the Supreme Court upheld almost 100 years ago.
        Mrs. Trahan. Well, thank you for your service.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. I thank the gentlelady. Now I will recognize
    the--Mrs. Cammack. Mrs. Cammack, my Florida--fellow Florida
    Gator. I recognize her for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mrs. Cammack. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    to our witnesses for being here today as we examine the many
    dangers that exist in what some have rightly called the wild
    west of the Internet. Today's hearing, ``The World Wide Web:
    Examining Harms Online,'' could not be more timely. From
    exploitation to manipulation, we know that the Internet has
    become a breeding ground for serious threats, especially to
    those most vulnerable, our kids.
        I want to begin by personally apologizing to the parents
    and the guests here in the committee room today for the
    behavior of some of my colleagues. We are here to focus on kids
    and the issue at hand, not play liberal catch phrase, talk
    about food prices, or talk about billionaires. Anything that
    deviates from that is politically motivated, and it is
    disgusting. And I am so sorry that you are in this room
    championing this issue because you have had and experienced
    tragedy in your family. I am so very sorry, and I hope that my
    colleagues will apologize.
        For me, personally, I want to focus on the most disturbing
    and deeply personal harms facing some of--some people online. I
    don't want to talk about employment status from a former
    Commissioner. I want to talk about the kids that are facing
    these tragedies.
        So I am going to start with you, Ms. Hawkins. Online
    platforms are fueling the wildfire spread of nonconsensual
    intimate images, including the AI-generated deepfakes, which
    have been talked about here today. There is zero
    accountability. Do you believe that Congress should hold these
    platforms liable--and I am using the word ``liable''
    deliberately--when they knowingly allow this kind of harmful
    content to stay up?
        And what kind of enforcement tools do we have in our
    toolbox? Because there is, in fact, more than one. So for the
    record, would you please describe?
        Ms. Hawkins. I will say that if we upload a clip from
    Disney, a Disney movie, it is removed immediately by Big Tech.
        Mrs. Cammack. Yes.
        Ms. Hawkins. But if sexual abuse is uploaded, the most
    horrific moments in our lives are uploaded to the Internet, it
    is monetized and it garners thousands of views and downloads
    and shares. There is so much that we can do. But as long as
    tech has no incentive to listen to survivors, to remove this
    material, we will see no change. The TAKE IT DOWN Act would do
    that significantly, but so too would sunsetting CDA 230. This
    committee almost called for that last year.
        The problem right now is tech is not coming to the table.
    We must have them at the table to negotiate and figure out the
    right solution.
        Mrs. Cammack. I agree with you, and I am disappointed to
    hear that all of a sudden one side is against Big Tech when all
    along this has been a bipartisan issue. We have seen
    conservatives censored online, we have seen progressive voices
    censored online. There has been a collective call for reform
    with the Big Tech companies, and this is another example where
    we can come together in a bipartisan way--in this case to
    protect our kids, especially online.
        And beyond the FTC--because there seems to be a lot of
    focus on former Commissioner Slaughter's employment status--can
    you talk about the FTC, but also the partners in order to
    enforce how we go about holding the companies accountable,
    taking the content down? How do we help give our survivors and
    the victims resources?
        Ms. Hawkins. I am not an expert on the FTC, but what--from
    what I understand and I have seen is we don't have the laws on
    the books right now for us to protect children online. It is
    not strong enough. Congress must act.
        Right now we need--you know, there is so much to say to
    that. One thing I want to transition and explain, too, is the
    app stores. Right now, you know, that is the gateway. Almost
    all of our youth, the content that they are consuming is
    through the app stores. We can see such significant progress if
    we just make them accountable to--and provide parental
    opportunities.
        Mrs. Cammack. Absolutely. And I think there is a coalition
    of apps that are working on this and other issues in the
    periphery, which will be very beneficial.
        I want to jump to the State laws that are currently on the
    books. And we know that as every State continues to add the
    laws, it becomes this patchwork deal where Congress will be
    forced to act. And we do need to act. And I agree with the
    chairman that, yes, we will take action, and we are willing to
    go it alone if need be, because this is the right thing to do
    for parents, for families, and for kids.
        But almost every State currently has laws on the books
    today that protect people from nonconsensual imagery. But 20
    States are now only covering deepfakes specifically. Now, given
    that, talk about at what point is the tipping point for
    Congress to step in?
        Ms. Hawkins. The reality is that those laws largely only
    focus on the initial creation and upload of the material. And
    what we know is immediately, once this material is uploaded,
    again thousands of views, maybe within hours, countless
    downloads. And it is quite inefficient. Congress brings
    efficiency here, and we need more, you know, energy. And we
    need a solution that holds the tech companies to--that forces
    them to listen to us when this is happening to us.
        Mrs. Cammack. Well, and I know my time is expired, so I
    will yield. But I also say thank you for being here in the face
    of threats to stand up for kids and for families. Thank you.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. We all thank you. All right, next
    we have the--let's see, who is next on the Democrat side?
        Mrs. Dingell. Dingell.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Mrs. Dingell, there she is. OK, Mrs.
    Dingell, you are recognized for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to start by saying thank you to all of the witnesses
    who I have worked with for a long time before I ever got to
    Congress. And like all of my colleagues, both sides of the
    aisle, we are horrified by the fact that there were death
    threats. I do not like the normalizing of violence or bullying
    or anything we are seeing. And we are here today because we are
    fighting that.
        And when I look at the parents, you need to know people on
    both sides care deeply. That is why we have been trying for
    years to get legislation through. I have sat with parents. My
    own sister died of suicide. I understand that pain. And there
    isn't a Member in this room that doesn't care about you, and I
    want to make that really clear. And what we really want to do
    is actually get something done. And I need to say that.
        I am proud to colead the bipartisan, bicameral TAKE IT DOWN
    Act, which recently passed the Senate unanimously and, for the
    record, was included in the end-of-the-year budget bill before
    it got killed. I won't say who it was because I won't make it
    partisan, but we got to work together because we know this has
    to get done.
        And my colleagues here have brought up the firing of these
    two Commissioners because it happened because he didn't like
    them. And we got to be clear here: The FTC is an independent
    agency, and what happened is blatantly unconstitutional. And
    independent agencies are intended to be insulated from
    political motivations. And this is the organization that is
    supposed to be keeping us safe. Without a functioning FTC, how
    can we expect to enforce the TAKE IT DOWN Act if it becomes
    law?
        And I am asking every colleague on the other side of the
    aisle to pledge to work to get this done. Please. We got to
    stop the politics. We got to get it done. How do we go after
    bad actors, protect consumers, and hold platforms accountable?
    The simple answer is we cannot. Gutting the FTC means gutting
    our ability to protect kids and women online.
        And as artificial technology advances, so do new forms of
    abuse. Primarily, who do they target? Women and children.
    Deepfake pornography is being used as a tool for harassment,
    humiliation, and intimidation, particularly against women who
    speak out and advocate for themselves or for children. That is
    what happened to you all today, and not a Member at this dais
    thinks that that is OK. I want to make that really, really
    clear.
        The TAKE IT DOWN Act provides victims with a path to
    justice, ensures these images are removed, and holds
    perpetrators accountable. I want to work with all stakeholders
    to pass the strongest bill possible and get this bill across
    the finish line, and I am begging my colleagues to help me do
    this. If we succeed in passing this important legislation, we
    got to make sure that we have got a body that is going to
    enforce it so that we don't have women unprotected against this
    growing threat.
        One of our most important jobs in Congress is to protect
    people, including from the growing harms online. And I will
    tell you, it is only getting worse. It is just getting worse by
    the day.
        So Commissioner Slaughter, let me ask you this question:
    Without a fully independent, functional FTC, do you believe the
    agency's current authority is sufficient to effectively enforce
    the TAKE IT DOWN Act and hold platforms accountable, or do we
    need to take additional action to strengthen potential
    enforcement capabilities?
        Ms. Slaughter. Thank you.
        Look, I would also like to not be here talking about my
    employment status. I would like to be here talking about this
    important work that the FTC has been doing and will be doing in
    the future to address these critically, critically important
    issues for American families, for parents across the country.
    Cyber bullying doesn't distinguish between Republicans and
    Democrats, blue States and red States. This is something that
    affects all of us and, I agree, we all need to be working
    together on.
        With respect to specific legislation, I think an important
    role at the FTC has been to take the laws that Congress has
    passed, to faithfully administer them, and then to go back to
    Congress if we think something needs to be improved or needs--
    or leaves gaps. And I think we have had some of those
    conversations around privacy generally, we have had those
    conversations around COPPA. If the--if Congress passes KOSA, if
    Congress passes TAKE IT DOWN, you certainly have my commitment
    to faithfully administer those laws and let you know if there
    is more that the FTC needs.
        Mrs. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I am out of time. Let's just
    pledge to work with each other and get these bills done.
        Mr. Bilirakis. In these children's memories, these
    beautiful children here, these pictures of these beautiful
    children.
        Thank you very much for coming, and you are going to make a
    difference, and we are going to work together to get this done.
        OK, next we have Mr. James, my good friend from the State
    of Michigan. You are recognized for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is not a partisan
    issue. This is something that we should be able to work
    together and get done.
        I have three young boys. John is 11, Hudson is 10 in 2
    days, and Christian is 6. And my 6-year-old, when--wanted to
    watch cartoons, saw something nice up on TV, a cartoon,
    innocent. And he was able, through the app store on our
    television, to buy Max, HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, and he was able
    to gain access through that just in a portal.
        It is vital to make sure that we hold our virtual stores to
    the same standards that we hold our physical stores when it
    comes to material that is adult or addictive. And that is why I
    am leading on this app store bill that makes sure that we
    continue behind States that are taking the first step by making
    sure that we have a national accountability act that harmonizes
    the effectiveness of giving parents the tools to take care of
    their children.
        The lack of guardrails in the digital app stores defies
    logic and puts children at risk. There is simply no good reason
    why app stores should be allowed to circumvent the same lawful
    ID checks that brick-and-mortar stores abide to protect
    children from accessing age-restricted items such as, again,
    alcohol and tobacco.
        In other words, we don't rely on Marlboro or Budweiser to
    ensure kids aren't purchasing their products. We look at CVS,
    we look at 7-Eleven, we look at the supermarkets to age gate.
    The app ecosystem should be no different than what is currently
    established in the United States of America. These app stores
    are out of touch, and they need to come to reality.
        This is not a partisan issue, as I said before. This is
    commonsense policy across party lines, and it is also what
    parents want. It is what parents are demanding, parents like
    us. We have seen similar legislation gaining steam and picking
    up momentum around the country, other States--Alabama,
    Kentucky, New Mexico, Alaska, and other States--this issue is
    far too important not to get this bill signed into law in this
    Congress. It is critical that we get this done and we get it
    right.
        My first question is for Ms. Hawkins. Clearly, the status
    quo is not working, and the current policy framework around
    these digital app stores is failing to protect our children.
    What loopholes does this bill rectify in our current law?
        And can you elaborate on why this bill, in your opinion, is
    built to withstand a legal challenge, given the focus on
    contracts, terms, and service.
        Ms. Hawkins. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman James.
        Right now our children are signing contracts, complex terms
    of service agreements with app stores, with apps individually
    every time they download it. These contracts allow access to
    their contact list, to their camera, to their photos, to their
    exact location. And parents often have no idea at all. There is
    no other place in American law where kids are allowed to sign
    contracts and broker into these really intense agreements. So
    that is one loophole.
        Another, though, is the age ratings. Parents think that
    they have given permission to their kids to get access to apps
    that are appropriate for their age. And the entire parental
    control system on both iOS and Google devices is based on these
    ages that Google and Apple have said, yes, these are right.
        But we are finding--there's the nonpartisan organizations
    Heat Initiative and Parents Together. They just released a
    report where 200 apps had harmful content. Our organization has
    found hundreds going back every year for 5 years that are rated
    for 4-year-olds, 9-year-olds, 12-year-olds, and it has sexually
    explicit content and allow strangers to communicate directly,
    it gives access to location, the list goes on.
        Unless there's accurate age ratings, we as parents can't
    make the decisions about whether this is appropriate content or
    material for our kids, and the entire system for safety doesn't
    even work.
        Mr. James. Thank you, Madam.
        Ms. Slaughter, when were you sworn in?
        Ms. Slaughter. I was originally sworn in on May 2, 2018.
        Mr. James. May 2, 2018. And you were chairman of the FTC
    for a small period of time, were you not?
        Ms. Slaughter. I was the acting chair----
        Mr. James. Acting.
        Ms. Slaughter [continuing]. From January to June of 2021.
        Mr. James. Acting chair of--June 2021. I would ask my
    colleagues, but I am running low on time. Do you recall who was
    in the majority in Congress during that time period?
        Ms. Slaughter. I believe the Democrats were----
        Mr. James. Democrats were the majority in Congress. Do you
    remember who the President was at that time?
        Ms. Slaughter. It was Joe Biden.
        Mr. James. It was Joe Biden. Joe Biden's approval rate was
    57 percent. And yet since 2018 and 2022, 33 kids younger than
    13 have died as a result of challenges on TikTok. Democrats are
    furious. They are incensed. They are outraged over these
    firings. But Republicans are outraged by dead babies and child
    porn.
        Do you ever think that maybe you might not have been as
    good at your job as you thought you were? Do you think that
    maybe something should change?
        My colleagues on the left are continuously saying--and I
    believe you said--we need to empower the Government agencies.
    Well, what we are here to do is empower the parents because
    when you empower parents you give children a chance. And we
    need to try something different than what has failed over the
    past 7 years.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and
    now I will recognize Ms. Kelly.
        I believe Ms. Kelly is here, no?
        Ms. Kelly. Yes, it is me.
        Mr. Bilirakis. She is not here, OK.
        Ms. Kelly. I am right here.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Oh, you are right here. I recognize you----
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
        Mr. Bilirakis [continuing]. For your 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Ms. Kelly. First of all, I want to thank the witnesses and
    your detailed answers. I really, really appreciate it.
        And I want to thank the parents. I know you came to my
    office, and we have spoken before, but I am compelled to say I
    don't need a person here to apologize for me. I am proud of how
    I carry myself. I am proud of what I do. I am proud that I am
    on the bills that you guys have talked about. I am an ally. And
    also, I have three grandchildren, and I care about all kids. I
    used to work in a child abuse place. I don't need anybody
    saying we care more about someone's job than we care about
    kids. That is very insulting. Very insulting.
        Ms. Slaughter, I am going to respect you and not talk about
    how you don't have your job. But I want you to talk about why
    ideologies and differences make a difference, even though it
    sounds like you guys work together in so many ways in a
    bipartisan way.
        Ms. Slaughter. Sure, thank you. I think it is incredibly
    valuable for Congress, for the public, and most importantly for
    the people that we serve for the FTC to function as Congress
    designed, as a multimember agency with bipartisan
    representation, with Commissioners who serve staggered terms
    over years so that we can work with each other, learn from each
    other, build towards consensus where it is available, and
    respectfully disagree with each other where that consensus
    can't be found.
        Those respectful disagreements provide transparency and
    accountability to the public, to advocates, to parents to hear
    about what else Congress could be doing, what else the FTC
    could be doing. So I will talk about a couple of important
    cases.
        In--when I was a minority Commissioner originally, the FTC
    had a landmark case against Facebook, a $5 billion settlement
    of a privacy violation involving how they dealt with data,
    including kids' data. I dissented from that settlement because,
    even though the majority at the time thought that $5 billion
    was a lot of money, I thought it wasn't enough to be
    effectively deterrent for that company. Sharing that
    disagreement publicly helps inform Congress and the American
    public about the work of the agency.
        I will give you another example related to kids. Another
    settlement I dissented from was the FTC settlement with Google
    and YouTube over child-directed content on YouTube in violation
    of COPPA. I actually thought the case was good, the claims were
    good. I didn't think the settlement got it done, because it
    allowed bad actors to illegally say--claim that their content
    was not child-directed, and they just had to be trusted about
    that.
        And all of us who are concerned about the content our
    children's access online and think we are trying to protect
    them by using age gates or using child-directed limitations are
    imperiled if those limitations don't actually work and the bad
    actors can work around them as we have heard some of these
    other witnesses talking about today.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you. Also, we have talked mostly about
    young children, but also there are seniors and other vulnerable
    populations and, of course, young children also. And I plan to
    introduce--reintroduce my Protecting Seniors from Emergency
    Scams Act, which will help us identify--help older adults
    identify scams.
        And I know--I hear you about the children, because I look
    at my grandson, and some of the times I have said, ``What is
    this?'' But the only thing is, he does ask. His mother has, I
    think, scared him to death if he does it. So he does ask first.
    But I have seen some interesting things on his phone.
        Can you talk about the malicious actors and, you know, if
    the FTC is significantly weakened because of fired
    Commissioners and people not being there?
        Ms. Slaughter. Yes. Well, I think it is pretty clear that
    corporate lawbreakers are in it to make money, right? They do
    these things because they are profitable. Some of the things we
    have heard about today are done for even more malign reasons.
    But ultimately, companies facilitate this lawbreaking because
    it is profitable to them to do so.
        And so our job is to ensure that our focus is on the laws
    that Congress passed, and administering those laws without fear
    or favor, and not being cowed by corporate power or corporate
    profits but instead keeping our focus on the people that we
    serve. And the independence of the FTC protects it from that
    kind of political or partisan interference that would inhibit
    the ability to hold corporate lawbreakers accountable.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you very much, and thank you for your
    service, and good luck. And thanks to all the witnesses. Again,
    you were really great. And thank you to the parents for being
    here. We will get this done.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. The gentlelady yields back. Now I will
    recognize Mr. Bentz for his 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all the
    witnesses for being here today.
        In preparation for this hearing I looked at the title. It
    said, ``The World Wide Web: Examining Online Harms.'' And of
    course, I am totally supportive of the fact that we are
    prioritizing kids, but I decided I would go back and take a
    quick look at just how much online time people were spending.
        So I am sure that all of you are aware of the fact that
    Americans now spend 7 hours and 3 minutes a day--each one of
    us, apparently--online. We also--I looked at the ages. I see
    here from 0 to 8, 2.5 hours; from 8 to 10 years old, 6 hours;
    11 to 14, 9 hours; 15 to 18, 7.5 hours a day. So when we talk
    about what we are going to do about this problem, boy, is it a
    big problem, a huge, almost insurmountable problem.
        And as I watch my kids and others, I note the diminishment
    of critical thinking, the diminishment of skills, the
    diminishment of self-sufficiency. There is no lack of problems
    created online. But I am happy today that we are talking about
    children. This is, obviously, what we need to be doing.
        Ms. Morell, your attorneys must have looked at this bill.
    Is it going to pass free speech scrutiny?
        Ms. Morell. Could you specify which bill?
        Mr. Bentz. When I say ``this bill'' I mean the protect our
    kids bill, the--
        Ms. Morell. The protect our kids bill?
        Mr. Bentz. Yes, the one we have been talking about the
    entire time today.
        Ms. Morell. Oh, TAKE IT DOWN, or KOSA?
        Mr. Bentz. TAKE IT DOWN.
        Ms. Morell. Oh, TAKE IT DOWN.
        Mr. Bentz. TAKE IT DOWN, yes, TAKE IT DOWN, forgive me.
        Ms. Morell. To pass free speech concerns, I believe it
    would. This is just trying to say that platforms--because in
    section 230 there is a Good Samaritan provision that
    incentivizes platforms and said you will be protected from
    liability for removing content that is obscene, lewd,
    lascivious, otherwise objectionable, but there has been no
    accompanying stick to that carrot. And what TAKE IT DOWN would
    say is that platforms cannot host content if they are contacted
    knowingly that is nonconsensual imagery, and they need to
    remove that.
        And so I think that is well within the authority of the
    Government to do that.
        Mr. Bentz. So in anticipation of this hearing I went and,
    of course, researched the TAKE IT DOWN bill and looked at some
    of the critical comments on it. It appears that there are
    questions that have been raised by various commentators about
    it, and I think we heard Congressman Obernolte reference the
    fact that it is not a perfect bill. I--we want this bill to
    survive, so I hope you have reached out. And whatever
    suggestions you have--or anybody on the panel--that we should
    change this bill, please tell us. Because in looking at the
    history of everyone trying to get this done, obviously, First
    Amendment issues are going to come up.
        While I am asking you questions, your testimony touches on
    the limits of some content-filtering tools available. I take it
    these things are not effective. Tell me why.
        Ms. Morell. Yes. So content filters have not been effective
    in the smartphone app-based ecosystem because often filters do
    not have access to the material inside of apps. And so
    pornography today is not restricted to pornography websites. It
    is on social media itself. And as I mentioned in my opening,
    often social media is the first entry point for kids, and they
    don't--they are not meaning to access it, but they stumble upon
    a link and they click on it. And because there is no age gating
    on these porn sites, they are immediately able to get through
    to Pornhub.
        And so the filters are not working. It is very difficult.
    They often don't filter the in-app browsers that--each
    individual application actually has its own portal to the
    Internet, and so it has been an incredibly difficult problem
    for parents on their own. And so that is why I have been
    supportive of solutions like age verification that would
    actually require the porn sites to verify this person is an
    adult before letting a child through, because filters are just
    not working for parents.
        And the technology has changed over the last 20 years. It
    has made it extremely difficult for filters to work.
        Mr. Bentz. I want to move back to a much more difficult
    issue in that section 230. So I was on Judiciary until I had
    the good fortune of being selected for this particular
    committee, and I must say in the days and weeks I spent
    studying section 230 it appeared to me hugely challenging to
    change it. Do you have some suggestions on how we might
    actually do that?
        Ms. Morell. A couple of quick suggestions. I would say one
    critical thing would just be to clarify that section 230 does
    not apply to product design, to the company's own wrongdoing or
    their own algorithms. That is their product.
        I think that has been an issue that we have seen, of
    lawsuits getting thrown out in court claiming section 230
    immunity when it was not the speech the platform was hosting of
    third parties, but it was actually the product design of those
    platforms, algorithms connecting sex traffickers to their
    victims or promoting blackout challenges into the feed of a 10-
    year-old girl who then took her life by accident. And so I
    think it is really important to clarify section 230 was not
    meant to cover product design.
        I would also say a bad Samaritan carve-out to say that if
    you are knowingly hosting criminal content or criminal behavior
    on your website, you do not get to hide behind section 230's
    immunity to accompany the Good Samaritan provision. We need a
    kind of commensurate bad Samaritan carve-out for knowingly
    hosting criminal material.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much, and thank you for
    making those suggestions. If we have any constitutional
    concerns, we want to make sure that we fix them now because
    ultimately we got to get this through, so--to protect our kids.
    So thank you very much, I appreciate it.
        And next we are going to ask Ms. Clarke. She has 5 minutes
    for questioning.
        You are recognized.
        Ms. Clarke. Good afternoon, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Ranking Member Schakowsky. And thank you to our
    witnesses for being here to testify, and to Commissioner
    Bedoya, who is also in attendance. Thank you for your hard work
    and dedication to the people of the United States.
        I find it disingenuous to convene this hearing on
    protecting children from online harms while Donald Trump
    dismantles the very agency that Congress created to protect
    consumers, including children. Having said that, where there is
    a will, there is a way. And we have to determine whether in
    fact there is a will.
        For decades the FTC has provided clarity for businesses and
    consumers protecting the American public from deceptive or
    unfair practices and unfair methods of competition. President
    Trump's attempted illegal firing of the Democratic FTC
    Commissioners is a continuation of the administration's
    anticonsumer agenda that promotes scams, deceptive practices,
    and costs Americans lives and money.
        I am curious how Mr. Trump and my Republican colleagues
    think this unlawful attempt furthers the mission of the FTC to
    protect the public from deceptive or unfair business practices
    and from unfair methods of competition through law enforcement,
    advocacy, research, and education. It is also no coincidence
    that the Trump's Project 2025 went as far as to question if the
    FTC should ``continue to exist.''
        So having said that, with the rapid advancement of
    artificial intelligence, consumers are faced with the
    increasingly acute potential harms of algorithmic
    discrimination. Facial recognition technology is a clear
    example of a tool powered by AI that time and time again has
    been prone to unjustified bias, particularly against members of
    communities of color.
        In 2023 the FTC took action against Rite Aid to address the
    company's harmful misuse of biased AI tools, and for years
    hundreds of Rite Aid stores used facial recognition technology
    to identify consumers it deemed likely to engage in shoplifting
    and alert store employees to their presence.
        According to the FTC, employees acting on false positive
    alerts followed consumers around in its stores, searched them,
    ordered them to leave, called the police to confront or remove
    consumers, and publicly accused them, sometimes in front of
    friends and family, of shoplifting and other wrongdoing. Also,
    according to the FTC, Rite Aid's actions disproportionately
    impacted people of color.
        It is nothing new that AI can prove--can often prove
    inaccurate and fail to properly identify people, especially
    when it comes to race, age, or gender. Rite Aid not only failed
    its customers by refusing to notify patrons of the use of
    biometric surveillance, but they also failed to test its own
    program for accuracy before deploying it.
        The role the FTC played in holding Rite Aid accountable
    cannot be overlooked. This is just an example. And we must
    acknowledge the importance of a bipartisan FTC in properly
    protecting consumers. Without a bipartisan FTC, consumers will
    lose their advocate to obtain recourse when they have been
    taken advantage of by scammers.
        So Commissioner Slaughter, what concerns do you have about
    the FTC's ability to address harmful discriminatory behavior
    moving forward without consultation from the Democratic
    Commissioners?
        Ms. Slaughter. Thank you, Congresswoman. I am very
    concerned about the FTC's ability to execute all of its
    mission, including the important parts of our mission that
    address new emerging technologies and how they are deployed in
    the marketplace. The law requires that that deployment be free
    of unfair or deceptive acts and practices, and we need to be
    able to have robust, bipartisan conversations about how those
    laws are being executed.
        You mentioned the Rite Aid case. That is an important one.
    Another important one is the Snap case, where AI chatbots--I
    actually can't get into the specific details of the case
    because the fact of it was made public but not the details, but
    it was a case where the FTC referred very serious concerns
    about the use of AI chatbots to the Department of Justice.
        And there is bipartisan debate and also bipartisan
    agreement about these issues. That debate makes us stronger. It
    makes the work better. It makes it more durable. And I think
    that that is true whether I serve in the minority or in the
    majority. It is the fact of having a diverse set of viewpoints
    to inform the work of the FTC that allows that work to be both
    effective and durable.
        Ms. Clarke. Let me thank you for all of your hard work and
    dedication.
        To the parents in the room, your loss is not lost on us.
    And I have been battling in this committee for many years
    around the fact that we have allowed no guardrails to be placed
    around the technologies that our children are being exposed to.
        I understand that my time has been finished.
        Mr. Fulcher [presiding]. The gentlelady's----
        Ms. Clarke. But I did want to say to you, where there is a
    will----
        Mr. Fulcher. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. Clarke [continuing]. There is a way, and we will get--
    --
        Mr. Fulcher. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. Clarke. And I yield back.
        Mr. Fulcher. The Chair recognizes the representative from
    Indiana, Representative Houchin.
        Mrs. Houchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank
    Chairman Guthrie, subcommittee Chair Bilirakis, and all the
    staff who worked hard to make this hearing possible.
        I especially want to thank the witnesses for being here
    today and apologize to you for what you have had to go through
    in the last several hours. It is unfair and disappointing.
        While I am new to this committee, I am not new to these
    issues. I am a parent of two daughters who are now young adults
    and a son who is a teenager. And they have grown up surrounded
    by social media and immersed in the digital world. And as a
    parent I want to directly respond to Ms. Hawkins.
        I have experienced everything that you mentioned with, you
    know, the failures in the protections that are supposed to be
    in place: Apple devices having confusing parental controls;
    Roblox claiming that people cannot message your children and
    access your children when they can; Snap Map and also YouTube
    Kids, which my son, when he was very young, I thought was
    protected because it is YouTube Kids, and he was on the app so
    long that it turned into something that he shouldn't have seen.
        We tried everything, every protection possible. We had
    parental apps that--like Qustodio that are supposed to protect
    kids from some of these things.
        But one of the things that happens in these circumstances
    is, even as parents, if we are as vigilant as possible, they
    can still go to other kids' devices and access these apps, and
    we cannot monitor them 100 percent of the time. My daughter
    found a work-around to stay on her phone.
        So I am very grateful we are having this hearing today, and
    I want to make special recognition of the parents that are here
    in the audience, and I want to apologize to you for the things
    that are being taken away from this conversation not being
    focused on protecting children but instead on someone's job at
    the FTC. I think that is completely unfair.
        I was also stopped in the hallway by a reporter who only
    wanted to ask me about the FTC. I did not comment because this
    hearing today is about protecting kids. A follow-up question
    was asked and I said, ``I am not commenting because this
    hearing today is about protecting kids.'' And shame on the
    media if the only thing they cover from today is the FTC,
    because children are dying, and parents need to hear this
    information. I am new to the committee, and at today's hearing
    the core is protecting kids.
        I do want to recognize Mason Bogard. Mason Bogard's memory
    is with us today. Mason's mother, Joanne, sent me a powerful
    letter that I want to read a portion of. ``My 15-year-old son,
    Mason, was our youngest of three children. He enjoyed playing
    his drums and entertaining his friends and family with his
    witty humor. He had just started his first job at a landscape
    business and was excited to start driver's ed. He enjoyed
    everything about the outdoors, including camping, hiking, and
    his love of fishing. He liked watching videos online to learn
    how to make new fishing lures and master his woodworking
    skills. He was a child of God, and knew he was loved by his
    family and friends. What I want you to know is that Mason was
    living a healthy and well-balanced lifestyle as a typical teen.
    Mason is no longer with us as a result of the choking
    challenge.''
        And I think of Mason every time we discuss these issues.
    His story stays with me, and so does the challenge coin that
    his mother gave me, which I keep as a reminder of what we are
    fighting for.
        Sadly, Mason's story is not unique. Annalee Schott was
    exposed to extremely graphic videos and images on platforms
    like TikTok and Instagram, so graphic that she even witnessed a
    live suicide being streamed. That experience had a devastating
    impact on her mental health, and ultimately led to her taking
    her own life in November of 2020.
        Becca Schmill died at 18 after unknowingly purchasing
    fentanyl-laced cocaine online. Her mother traces Becca's
    struggles back to trauma that was facilitated by social media,
    sexual assault, cyber bullying, and easy-to-access dangerous
    drugs.
        Then there is Walker Montgomery. Walker was the victim of a
    horrific sextortion scheme. He was blackmailed after
    unknowingly participating in a sexual encounter that was
    secretly recorded by someone pretending to be someone else. The
    perpetrators demanded $1,000 or they would release the footage
    to his friends and family. He tragically took his own life.
        These are real kids, real families, real tragedies. These
    are complex issues with legal and regulatory implications. But
    we should not--it shouldn't be so complex that we don't achieve
    our shared goal, which is to protect kids. Meeting with parents
    like Joanne and those who loved Annalee, Becca, and Walker is
    both heartbreaking and motivating. These families have turned
    unimaginable grief into a mission to help prevent other
    tragedies.
        Every time I meet with them, I am reminded why this work
    matters, and I am proud to be a champion for them.
        Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions. I yield back.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
    from California, Congressman Mullin.
        Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for being
    here.
        I want to begin by reiterating that the bills and
    approaches discussed here today to protect our children online
    would fall to the FTC to enforce. Congress established the FTC
    as an independent agency with a clear mandate to protect
    consumers from unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent practices. For
    90 years the President has not been able to fire an FTC
    Commissioner without just cause. And yet today we find
    ourselves a week removed from the attempted unlawful firings of
    two FTC Commissioners by the President.
        Beyond that, the Chair of the FTC has gone along with the
    Elon Musk DOGE operation and dismissed a number of FTC
    employees with probationary status, also without cause.
        I am having a hard time figuring out why anyone on either
    side of the aisle would want this. If the FTC is no longer an
    independent agency and if it no longer has the resources it
    needs to actually get the work done, then what are we even
    doing here?
        I am deeply concerned about a rollback of some of the
    strong consumer protection work that the FTC has done over the
    last several years. Much of it was bipartisan, but some of it,
    particularly some of the work done during the last few months
    of the Biden administration, was passed on a strictly partisan
    basis in order to address a breach of driving location data by
    a major car company, a referral of a consumer complaint against
    Snap to the Department of Justice in order to prevent location-
    based targeted advertising without user consent, a new click-
    to-cancel rule that prevents unfair business practices and
    enables consumers to more easily unsubscribe from recurring
    charges.
        Despite the clear benefits to consumers of all of this
    work, none of these initiatives were supported by the other two
    Commissioners, who at least for now remain in their position.
    So Commissioner Slaughter, as I understand it, you will be
    challenging the President's attempts to unlawfully fire you and
    Commissioner Bedoya, as well. While that challenge is underway,
    will the two other Commissioners undo all of this progress I
    cited?
        How does your attempted firing impact the FTC's legitimacy,
    authority, and role, and what does that mean for American
    consumers and businesses?
        Ms. Slaughter. Thank you.
        I think at the moment it is really unclear what happens to
    any FTC action. As you notice--as you noted, we haven't been in
    a position like this in over 90 years, so there is a lot we
    don't know about what happens. And what concerns me is that
    throws work, even work that I would agree with, into question.
    The last thing I voted on before the President tried to fire me
    was a 4-0 challenge to a medical device merger that would raise
    the cost of healthcare even further.
        There's a lot of things that I agree on with my Republican
    colleagues, and that is work that is done best on a bipartisan
    basis. There are also good things that I think the agency has
    done that they don't support. It has always been clear to me
    that they might try to undo some of the progress that I think
    we made in the last administration, and they are entitled to do
    that as a majority, but they need to get the votes to do that.
    And they, under the law, need to do that in the face of the
    transparency and accountability that minority votes would
    provide. And that is helpful to Congress and to the American
    public.
        Mr. Mullin. And Commissioner, in your prior testimony you
    have outlined several examples of the FTC enforcing online
    safety. Can you expand on the steps taken over the last 4 years
    to bring more technologists into the agency?
        How is this expertise being undermined by the
    administration's actions?
        And what impact will this have on the FTC's ability to
    investigate and protect consumers' online safety moving
    forward, in your opinion?
        Ms. Slaughter. I think one of our big accomplishments
    during the last administration was setting up the Office of
    Technology. The FTC was created by Congress to be a body of
    independent experts, and we have long relied on the expertise
    of economists and others. We--Chair Khan set up an Office of
    Technology and built it out with really expert technologists
    who can inform our research work, our casework, and report out
    to the public about technological trends. And that is
    enormously valuable. That office is much smaller now than it
    was even 2 months ago. I couldn't give you the exact numbers,
    but it is substantially smaller, and I worry that that
    critically important expertise is being limited by some of the
    broader cuts we are seeing across the Government.
        Mr. Mullin. Well, Commissioner, I would like to thank you
    for your service, which is not over, and for your continued
    efforts to protect our children and American consumers. So
    thank you.
        And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
    from South Carolina, Congressman Fry.
        Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing
    today. Thank you to the witnesses, to the parents in the room
    who are here, who have traveled far.
        The bravery, Ms. Hawkins, of dealing with the stuff that
    you dealt with yesterday with the death threats, I think that
    there is no place in this.
        And I am going to go off the reservation a little bit here
    in that there is a reason why Democrats are viewed by the
    American people at an all-time low. It is because they can't
    keep the main thing the main thing. We are here today, to be
    clear, 100 percent--everyone knew the assignment when we got
    into this hearing room ahead of time. We are here to talk about
    children's safety online. And all I hear from the other side is
    rantings and ravings about the FTC. If you want to talk about
    the FTC, go do a one-minute speech on the House floor. You want
    to talk about the FTC? Have a press conference. Here----
        Ms. Castor. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Fry. No, I am not--this is my time. Here we are here to
    talk about children. But they can't seem to get it, and that is
    why they are viewed deeply unpopular by the American people
    right now.
        And in fact, the witness from the FTC spent 4 of her 5
    minutes talking about how she was fired and not the actual
    subject why we are here. So that is frustrating to me.
        But there is broad bipartisan consensus on a lot of this
    stuff. We are here to examine that, on ways that we can advance
    sensible policy.
        Ms. Hawkins, you talked about somebody from South Carolina,
    Mr. Guffey, who is a State representative, and his son Gavin,
    who was involved in a sextortion scheme. And I am glad that law
    enforcement is doing something about it now, but that doesn't
    replace his son.
        And so what can we do as policymakers up here? There is a
    lot. Sextortion, AI-generated abuse and imagery, online
    platforms turning a blind eye. These are all things that we
    recognize. The danger is real, and it is accelerating what we
    have now.
        Ms. Souras, your testimony highlighted an astounding 1,325
    percent increase in AI-generated child sexual abuse material.
    What are the challenges of law enforcement in identifying
    those--under the current scheme identifying and distinguishing
    AI-generated images from real victims?
        Ms. Souras. Thank you for the question. That is a challenge
    both for NCMEC that has a child victim identification program
    that works closely with law enforcement and, obviously, all law
    enforcement agencies that are--when they see an image of the
    sexual abuse of a child, they often do not know where that
    child is. They need to identify that child. They need to locate
    that child. There is a lot of work that goes into that.
        Now that we have AI-generated imagery--and, you know, I am
    told by the analysts at NCMEC that the technology is so good
    now that it is very, very difficult to distinguish. It was
    easier 6 months ago, a year ago, but now it is very difficult
    to distinguish between an image that is AI-generated of a child
    being sexually abused and an actual image of a child being
    sexually abused.
        So what we have is a flood of imagery, some that is--I will
    call it fake, but it is a digital forgery, and some that is a
    real child who might be in an actively abusive situation. And
    law enforcement--and again, and NCMEC, in our support role--
    have to somehow decipher which are the real children. So we
    face the real danger that somebody will spend time trying to
    identify a child who simply does not exist, it is an AI-
    generated child, while a real child currently in an abusive
    situation waits in the queue.
        Mr. Fry. Do you think legislation could properly address
    that challenge that we have?
        Ms. Souras. I think it could, again, if we look especially
    upstream so that we can prevent this technology from even being
    allowed to create that imagery to begin with.
        Mr. Fry. Thank you for that.
        Ms. Morell, you know, tech companies knowingly design
    addictive platforms and evade meaningful age verification. Your
    testimony talked about that. In your view, what specific legal
    requirements beyond just parental controls should Congress
    evaluate to stop the cycle of exposure and exploitation?
        Ms. Morell. Yes, so I will say I am on the extreme end. I
    would kind of plant my flag in the ground on saying I think
    Congress should seriously consider that the environment and the
    underlying design of social media is so harmful to children it
    should actually be age-restricted out of childhood. The default
    age for social media has been 13, but not because of a specific
    law related to social media but because of COPPA passed in
    1996, before social media even existed, about data collection.
        And so I think we really need an updated legal regime that
    really tries to delay social media as far as possible. Because
    if you talk to parents, almost every parent says, ``I wish that
    my child wasn't on social media, but I feel compelled to let
    them on these apps because every one of their friends is on
    it.'' And that, to me, is a classic collective action problem
    that the Government has a very critical role to play in
    solving, where then each individual parent doesn't have to face
    that battle on their own.
        We can say, like alcohol or tobacco or even operating
    firearms or driving cars, technologies we have recognized are
    just too powerful for a child to handle. I think we are seeing
    that in the way social media has even changed over time, how
    aggressive the algorithms are, that the entire nature and
    environment it creates and the underlying design is not a place
    for children.
        Mr. Fry. Thank you for that.
        Mr. Chairman, before I yield I want to enter three articles
    into the record about Mr. Guffey and his fight from various
    periodicals in South Carolina.
        Mr. Bilirakis [presiding]. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Fry. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Bilirakis. OK. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Schrier,
    Dr. Schrier, you are recognized for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
    of the witnesses for being here today. Thank you for the
    parents for being here today. And a special thank you to
    Commissioners Bedoya and Slaughter for being here today.
        Oh, also thanks, Mr. Fry, for lecturing a pediatrician
    about caring for children but not for your leadership in
    blocking our bill that protects children.
        Amen, Ms. Morell. I have a 16-year-old, and he is forbidden
    from downloading any social media on his phone.
        So we are here today to talk about online safety for
    children. It is an issue I care deeply about that I have been
    working on for years. And as a pediatrician I have seen the
    negative effects that unfettered screen time and social media
    has had on children.
        In fact, I witnessed in my own practice the steep rise in
    depression and anxiety and eating disorders that absolutely
    paralleled the rise in social media use by kids. I even had a
    patient who had to change school districts twice because of
    online bullying, and it followed her.
        So this is one reason I have been such a champion for
    cracking down on the way social media companies abuse
    children--like privacy violations, algorithms that keep them
    addicted, and a lack of protection from abuse by others--and it
    is the reason that I am particularly frustrated that Republican
    leadership blocked the Kids Online Safety Act from even coming
    to the floor for a bipartisan vote.
        But there is an elephant in the room. As we have heard
    today, President Trump has fired the only two Democratic
    Commissioners at the FTC. These firings upend nearly a century
    of precedent through this illegal attempt to fire them.
    Commissioners Slaughter and Bedoya have championed and enforced
    the protection of children on social media platforms, and this
    is the Commission that holds Big Tech accountable.
        It is also the Commission that protected consumers last
    year by preventing the merger between Kroger and Albertsons,
    which would have jacked up prices in the grocery stores even
    more. So the FTC is one of the most important independent
    agencies in our Government, and an agency that was commissioned
    by Congress to be independent, bipartisan, and with terms
    spanning administrations.
        But I fear that, without two Democratic Commissioners, a
    partisan FTC might withdraw from its mission in this political
    environment with an emboldened executive branch that has been
    quite successful in bending Republicans to his will. This
    administration has clearly aligned itself with Big Tech, front-
    row seats at the inauguration, but--rather than with the
    American consumer.
        So Commissioner Slaughter, I am nearly last to speak today.
    And I just want to give you, first of all, thanks for enforcing
    our laws. But second, I would like to just give you the
    platform for the next 2 minutes to talk about anything you
    would like that you either want to reiterate or have not had
    time to address today.
        Ms. Slaughter. Thank you. I feel like I have had a lot of
    opportunity to share my perspective, but I think the most
    important thing that I haven't had a chance to say is it really
    is not about me or about Commissioner Bedoya. We love our
    agency. We love our jobs. We want to do it. But I could be very
    happy spending time with my four kids and trying to police
    their social media use unsuccessfully more. But what I care
    about and what Commissioner Bedoya cares about is the integrity
    of the work of the agency precisely because of the people who
    are sitting in this room today.
        I feel, he feels very, very driven to make sure that
    government and the institutions that Congress has designed are
    working for parents like those behind us and for every other
    parent so they don't have to be in that position going forward.
    It is so important.
        It is not about being a Democrat. It is not about being in
    the minority. It would be true throughout the Commission's
    history. I think it is important to have a variety of voices
    and a variety of perspectives, as Congress designed, precisely
    because these issues that the FTC is tasked with handling are
    so important to the American people. And I care deeply about
    them, and I want that work to continue.
        I have heard so much common ground with my fellow witnesses
    today and so much shared concern that I have with them about
    the way technology today is operating outside the bounds of
    what the law is and also what the law should be. And we want to
    make sure that the focus of the agency is on protecting those
    kids and protecting those families.
        Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you to our
    witnesses, to the parents here today. And that is the whole
    point: to offer our condolences and make sure this does not
    happen to any other child or parent.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. The gentlelady yields back. I now will
    recognize Ms. Laurel Lee for her 5 minutes of questioning.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this
    important hearing, and I also express my gratitude to each of
    our witnesses for being here today and sharing your important
    testimony with us.
        So during the last Congress I had an opportunity to work on
    legislation related to protecting children, most notably the
    REPORT Act, and was fortunate to partner with a number of the
    groups that are represented here today in crafting that policy.
    And I look forward to continuing our work together on
    protecting kids online here in this committee.
        As our committee explores legislation such as COPPA, we
    face the task of ensuring that we are making the right
    decisions and keeping our children safe. Your input and your
    testimony, as you have heard today, is so valuable to us
    drafting legislation and getting it right. Ms. Morell, as you
    noted--I thank you for being here and for sharing your
    expertise and your thoughtful insight about these challenges.
    And as you noted, it has been many years since Congress enacted
    privacy protections for children online. And in those years
    technology has evolved and outpaced the protections that we
    have currently in place. I am eager to work on COPPA with
    Representatives Castor and Walberg to improve protections for
    minors in a way that is in keeping with the threats we face in
    the 21st century.
        Now, one thing I want to touch on specifically is the
    targeted ads. So as they relate to adults, those can sometimes
    be helpful in retail and other applications. They can sometimes
    be something that is a benefit to the consumer. But for
    targeted ads as they relate to children and young people, will
    you explain to us why that practice in particular is harmful?
        Ms. Morell. Yes, it is extremely harmful because children
    are not--don't have the maturity that an adult has to be able
    to make decisions for themselves and to discern truth from
    false claims. And so I think it is really dangerous that these
    businesses are allowed to target ads to children in ways that
    then they feel compelled then that they should buy this product
    and they are not discerning. And so I think it is a really
    predatory practice.
        Ms. Lee. And on that note, in your testimony you identify
    how Big Tech continues to recruit younger and younger users to
    their platforms. And you were just speaking with Representative
    Fry about your view that we really ought to just restrict
    access to these platforms to a higher age. Tell us a little bit
    more about your thoughts on that subject.
        Ms. Morell. Yes. So I think that the nature of social media
    today is not a safe place for children. I feel like example
    after example has shown that the environment created by the
    product design, the way that their algorithms work, the kinds
    of material it promotes--which is often the most sensational or
    violent or explicit materials--what gets promoted into
    children's feed have made it an extremely unsafe place, as well
    as the metrics are designed to incentivize children to even
    post sexual images of themselves. And it has normalized a lot
    of the practices that we are talking about.
        Why are teens creating deepfake pornography? Because the
    environment and nature of the online world is extremely
    sexualized and violent. And so it is not a safe place for
    children. And I have said this before, but the same way that in
    the real world we don't take children to bars or strip clubs
    and then try to blindfold them there--we just don't take them
    to those places. And I think social media has gotten to that
    point today that, unless the business model vastly changes, it
    is not a safe environment for children, nor is it a safe
    substance because, as we have seen, brain studies show it acts
    on the brain like highly addictive drugs.
        And so for both those reasons I think the precedent in our
    laws tell us to age-restrict it out of childhood.
        Ms. Lee. And Ms. Hawkins, one of the things that you have
    emphasized is the vulnerability of young teens who are not
    protected after the age of 13 under our current scheme. Would
    you like to speak on this, as well, and how you think that
    should change?
        Ms. Hawkins. Thank you. Well, one of the problems with
    COPPA originally passed is that it set the digital age --
    inadvertently set the digital age of adulthood at 13. And even
    though it was focused on privacy, Big Tech has just run away
    with this idea, and they have literally--I mean, one time I met
    with Google 10 years ago. I walked out of the meeting with
    Google, and we were talking about, you know, filters for 13-,
    14-, 15-year-olds. And they said, ``Why would we want to block
    pornography from a 14-year-old? They are adults at that age.''
    And that is when I realized the impact of creating this digital
    adulthood age.
        And I just ask--there is so much good in COPPA 2.0. There
    is so much good, and we need it. But I also ask that we not
    further cement this idea that we are digital adults at that age
    and that parents are not needed.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. I thank the gentlelady. Now we
    have Mr. Veasey.
        You are recognized, sir, for your 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
    the witnesses for being here today. I think that we have
    learned a lot today, that blocking bills like COPPA and other
    things that are--that protect our kids is bad, and that we
    shouldn't be doing that. And so I appreciate your comments
    today and you sharing some of those things.
        I also wanted to talk very briefly about the attempted
    removal of two minority Commissioners from the FTC, and how I
    think that that is really bad for the things that we are trying
    to accomplish here today to protect our children and other
    consumers, as this agency has a very long history of doing.
        It is unconstitutional. It is wrong. And that is the type
    of thing that could really further wreck our kids' and our
    teenagers' lives. And that is not what we want. I think that is
    the one thing that we have heard from the panel, is that we
    don't want things that are going to make it harder for our
    young people. We want to protect them, and we can't do that if
    we are going to try to undermine the Constitution.
        Commissioner Slaughter, I wanted to ask you. You have a
    very strong record for advocating for consumer protections
    with--and with ongoing supply chain disruptions and shifting
    tariff policies, I really worry that unfair and deceptive
    business practices are going to be on the horizon. How does
    President Trump's attempt to remove you and the other
    Commissioner from the minority impact the Federal Trade
    Commission's ability to hold corporations and people that want
    to hurt our kids and other consumers through things like price
    gouging accountable?
        Ms. Slaughter. Thank you. Congress designed the FTC over
    100 years ago--111 years ago--and set it up to be a bipartisan
    agency made up of members from both parties who serve staggered
    terms because Congress understood that that was a really
    important way to insulate the work of the FTC from corrupting
    influences, from partisanship, and from political interference.
        Over the time I have served at the FTC, our staff have gone
    up against some of the most powerful companies in court. They
    have done that supported by Commissioners from both parties
    because we understand that our obligation is to enforce the law
    without fear or favor. That is based in the design of the FTC
    that Congress set up.
        And I am very concerned that my attempted removal not only
    eliminates the bipartisan voices that Congress intended, but it
    also sends a message to the majority Commissioners that they
    too could be removed at a whim if they are not willing to take
    action that may be a favor to some of these big, big companies,
    the most powerful companies in the world. And that is really
    concerning if what we want--what we all want, I think, is for
    the focus of the administration of the law to be on the
    American people----
        Mr. Veasey. Yes.
        Ms. Slaughter [continuing]. The children, the consumers,
    the workers, and honest businesses.
        Mr. Veasey. That is scary, because that is almost the type
    of thing that you hear of in a communist country.
        Commissioner Slaughter also, I know, as the Nation's top
    privacy enforcer, that you guys want to protect Americans'
    data, their personal data. And data--again, that could be--and
    I think everybody on this panel seems to express an interest in
    helping kids, especially, and that kids can have data, all of
    us can. And I wanted to ask you, with data breaches on the rise
    and targeted advertisements constantly testing the limits of
    consumer privacy, how does your attempted removal and the other
    Commissioner's attempted removal weaken the FTC's ability to
    protect users online?
        And do you see this as part of a broader effort to
    undermine the agency's independence?
        Ms. Slaughter. Yes, I am very worried about it. The FTC has
    conducted a study on social media and video streaming services'
    data collection and use practices. I mentioned it a little bit
    earlier. It started under the first Trump administration. It
    was the product of a bipartisan effort by myself, former
    Commissioner Wilson, former Commissioner Chopra. We finally
    released the report last year.
        And what I didn't get a chance to say is that report talks
    not only about the way data is collected but also how it is
    used. We have heard a little bit about some of the really
    disturbing challenges that kids are set up with online. We
    heard about the choking challenge. There has been the Tide pod
    challenge. The report that we issued talked about the ways in
    which companies use data to fuel engagement and interest,
    including around things like this that create real material
    harms for kids that cannot be undone.
        Mr. Veasey. Yes.
        Ms. Slaughter. Once it happens, it is too late.
        Mr. Veasey. Yes.
        Ms. Slaughter. So our job, as all of the parents in this
    audience know, is to get ahead of those problems, to send clear
    signals to the market on a bipartisan basis about what conduct
    is prohibited by the law and how companies bear the burden of
    following the law, and that that needs to be done without fear
    or favor.
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bilirakis. I appreciate it. I thank the gentleman for
    yielding back. And now we will recognize Mr. Kean from the
    great State of New Jersey.
        You are recognized for 5 minutes of questioning, sir.
        Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all of
    our witnesses for being here today. Last Congress, following a
    horrific deepfake incident at a high school in my district, I
    made AI safety a priority. I led efforts on the AI Labeling
    Act. I co-led the Preventing Deepfakes of Intimate Images Act,
    and I am cosponsoring the TAKE IT DOWN Act. We must ensure
    proper oversight holding bad actors accountable and fostering
    responsibility among AI companies and users.
        While AI safeguards remain critically important, another
    focus now is expanding towards data privacy concerns,
    particularly on how we protect Americans, especially children,
    from online exploitation and data misuse. As Congress considers
    Federal data privacy standards, today's discussions will help
    us understand the challenges families face and the most
    effective ways to ensure stronger protections moving forward.
        Ms. Souras, what legal and technological challenges exist
    in preventing the spread of malicious deepfake pornography?
        And what role does Congress play in strengthening
    protections for victims while holding perpetrators accountable?
        Ms. Souras. Thank you for the question, Congressman. Let me
    address the technical challenges first.
        I think there is a rush to market. We are a country of
    innovation. We saw this when the Internet first arose. We are
    seeing this with AI now. There is tremendous competition and
    pressure to rush products to market without safety by design,
    without consideration of how children will interact with these
    tools and how offenders will misuse these tools. So that is, I
    think, the primary challenge.
        There also is really, again, a lack of safety by design. We
    have heard that term, I think, throughout the hearing today. It
    is embedded in several pending bills that I think will be
    addressed this term. But it is really the concept of requiring
    companies before they roll out a new service, a new platform, a
    new product to really consider the dangers to children--again,
    the misuse by offenders, and how a child might interact with
    the new technology--and safeguard those children.
        I think the final issue is, again, looking to the upstream.
    We need to look upstream on technology in terms of AI producers
    and AI developers. We need to help those producers that want to
    create a self--a safe product. We need to consider red teaming
    so they actually have the ability to test that AI and make sure
    it is not available or able to produce child sexual
    exploitation material. That is a complicated partnership that
    needs to occur to achieve that. But we need to again look
    upstream and prevent this imagery from being created in the
    first place, rather than focusing only on criminal or civil
    remedies down the road.
        If I can, just to address the legal challenges as well: So
    I don't really think there is unclear liability around AI
    companies. I think it is clear that they are not protected by
    section 230. I do think there is a lack of clarity around civil
    and criminal remedies. Obviously, TAKE IT DOWN will address the
    criminal remedies. There have been some bills pending in the
    last term--and I expect to see them reintroduced this term as
    well--that would address the civil penalties. So again, we
    really need those three avenues to completely protect children
    from AI.
        Mr. Kean. Thank you.
        Ms. Hawkins, is there anything you would like to add on
    that?
        Ms. Hawkins. I want to add just that behind me sits the
    Young People's Alliance, a group of young people, the parents
    of Matthew and Grace also. And we have walked these halls
    together asking for Congress to take action. And we join
    together again asking once more.
        We felt outrage when the Kids Online Safety Act, when the
    TAKE IT DOWN Act, when so many of these other bills didn't pass
    last year. And we just come before you asking for Congress to
    finally take action.
        Mr. Kean. Thank you. Thank you.
        Ms. Morell, what are the key obstacles preventing parents
    from effectively utilizing existing online safety tools?
        And how can Congress address these gaps without infringing
    on First Amendment rights?
        Ms. Morell. Yes. So the current gaps is that the tools made
    available to parents don't actually allow parents oversight or
    insight into what is happening on a child's feed or their
    direct messages, which is where a lot of the sextortion schemes
    or predators are gaining access to children, through these
    messages that parents have no access to. And the parental
    supervision tools available are really just to set time limits
    or certain restrictions on the app, but often those
    restrictions aren't effective. And also the teen can cancel
    this supervision at any time. And so it is not really an
    effective control in that sense.
        And so what I have argued and advocated for is really age-
    restricting social media out of childhood as an unsafe
    substance and dangerous environment for children. That would
    empower all parents to be able to protect their kids,
    including--this hasn't really been mentioned, but a lot of
    children are left unprotected because they don't have involved
    parents. And I think we need to care for America's children
    across the board, whether or not they have involved parents
    putting those controls in place or not. And so that is why I
    have advocated for solutions that age-restrict it out of
    childhood.
        And the last thing I would say is I think the other way
    that we hold companies accountable for harms to children is
    opening up liability against them, and that has largely been
    blocked because of section 230. And so KOSA and other bills
    like it would try to actually clarify that companies need to be
    liable for mitigating objective harms to children in their
    product design.
        Mr. Kean. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. I appreciate it. The gentleman yields back,
    and I now recognize Mr. Evans from the great State of Colorado.
        Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to the ranking member,
    to the witnesses for coming today and, of course, to the
    families and to the parents who are in the audience. My first
    question will be to Ms. Souras with NCMEC.
        I was a cop for a little over 10 years, so I have
    personally worked these cases that originated with tips from
    NCMEC. I know the great work that you do. And unfortunately, I
    know the truly terrible and traumatic events that you often
    have to monitor and then refer out for investigation: digital
    alterations, revenge porn, online bullying, AI, deepfake,
    sextortion, and the list goes on and on. And I think it is
    critically important to note how horrible and graphic these
    crimes are.
        One of the things that I did in law enforcement was peer
    support. And so that is police officers taking care of other
    police officers to safeguard and shepherd the mental health of
    first responders. And some of the highest levels of trauma that
    we ever see in law enforcement is the crimes against children--
    investigators--because of just the absolutely brutal and
    graphic nature of these crimes. And NCMEC and the work that you
    do is at the front lines of being able to identify and refer
    out for further investigation in this space.
        And so my first question to you comes from something that
    you had mentioned in your written testimony where you were
    talking about some of the challenges of online digital security
    with end-to-end encryption, but how end-to-end encryption also
    makes it more difficult at times to be able to actually
    identify this. And so my question to you is, can you speak a
    little bit about how we can protect online privacy with good
    encryption but also make sure that entities like NCMEC have the
    tools that they need to be able to find, interdict, and refer
    out for investigation some of these heinous crimes?
        Ms. Souras. Thank you for the question.
        So I think when we are talking about end-to-end encryption
    and child safety, it is a balancing act, right? Like so many
    other things in our legal system. NCMEC has been very public
    that we support end-to-end encryption for consumer privacy.
    Obviously, everybody wants their medical, their legal, you
    know, their financial information to be protected through
    strong security measures, end-to-end encrypted, et cetera. We
    have probably all in this room been hacked previously due to a
    lack of digital security.
        However, there has to be a balance regarding child safety,
    and I feel like this has become a, you know, a little bit of a
    choice where you have to pick one at the sacrifice of the
    other, and we simply don't believe that is the case.
        So when you are considering child safety considerations,
    again, those are not financial, medical, legal concerns that
    adults are engaging in. We are talking about children engaging
    with adults, with offenders on social media. There are
    platforms there that simply do not need to be default end-to-
    end encrypted. Children's accounts do not need to be default
    end-to-end encrypted. We need to make sure there is visibility
    and transparency if children are going to be online in those
    environments so that a company has the ability to detect,
    right?
        This is all about detection. If a company cannot see what
    is going on, how an offender is approaching a child, what kind
    of imagery they are soliciting or sending that child, we will
    never get a report at NCMEC, and law enforcement will never get
    a report to investigate and safeguard a child.
        So we support balancing using the technology that is
    available to us to protect the digital security that end-to-end
    encryption provides while also ensuring that child safety is
    balanced with that.
        Mr. Evans. Thank you. And kind of a followup corollary to
    that, my home State, Colorado, unfortunately has the
    distinction of having the second-highest number of teenage
    overdose deaths as a result of illegal drugs being sold. And we
    know a lot of times those transactions occur through online
    interactions with kids, with juveniles, through social media or
    other apps.
        Can you speak a little bit to how the work that NCMEC has
    been doing in the child sexual exploitation space--can we use
    that as a corollary to be able to identify and interdict some
    of these drug transactions that, again, are taking thousands
    and thousands of lives around the country?
        And oftentimes the operating principle that some of these
    perpetrators use is very similar. They use coded language. They
    are trying to evade detection online. Can you speak to that?
        Ms. Souras. Absolutely. And it is a great question, and an
    issue that we have discussed with several other groups and
    Members of Congress, as well, previously.
        I think there is a corollary. You know, our CyberTipline,
    which is the receiver of reports relating to child sexual
    exploitation that we evaluate, handle, and then send to law
    enforcement, is a good model because it relies on detection by
    technology companies, by online platforms--again, based on
    emojis, like you said, based on coded language, based on direct
    solicitations--that would be very similar for drugs in many
    ways as it is for CSAM or exploitation of children.
        Again, having a reporting mechanism that is centralized--
    again, for drug transactions--would also facilitate determining
    a jurisdiction, determining where an offender is, where a
    victim is, and allowing law enforcement to pursue their
    investigation.
        Mr. Evans. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Bilirakis. The gentleman yields back. I will recognize
    Mr. Coleman from the great State of Texas for 5 minutes.
        Goldman, excuse me, Goldman. Excuse me.
        Mr. Goldman. Goldman, Coleman, it all sounds----
        Mr. Bilirakis. I apologize.
        Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Elliston Berry is a constituent of mine. And those of you
    who don't know her, she was a victim of deepfake revenge porn.
    I want to be thankful to her for her bravery, for her coming to
    the Capitol during the joint address, sitting next to the First
    Lady of the United States of America, thankful to the President
    for recognizing her in the gallery in front of millions of
    Americans. And it is bravery like hers, it is bravery like
    yours coming forward telling your stories. The reason we are
    here today is--and I see some of the families out there in the
    audience, and I see photos. Can you hold those up?
        This is the reason we are here today. This is the reason we
    are here today, Members.
        Thank you for being here. Thank you for your bravery. Thank
    you for telling your story. This is what we need to hear,
    because it is about the safety of the children of America. That
    is the reason we are here, and that is why we have the TAKE IT
    DOWN Act. That is why I am proud to be a cosponsor, and I look
    forward to its passage.
        I don't have any questions for you all. By the time it gets
    to me, all the questions pretty much have been asked that I
    wanted to ask. I just wanted to thank you all very much for
    being here, for telling your story, for your bravery. And I
    look forward to the passage.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the rest of my time.
        Mr. Bilirakis. I appreciate that very much. So I believe
    that is the last presenter. We don't have anyone else, any
    other Members on either side.
        So I do want to tell you--a very productive hearing, and I
    want to thank Ms. Hawkins in particular, but all of the
    witnesses today for obvious reasons, but all the witnesses here
    today, and very informative. And we all agree on the issues,
    the subject matter of this hearing and the legislation put
    forward.
        And you know that Brett and I--or Chairman Guthrie--will
    make this a priority. The fact that we have had an early
    educational hearing shows that these bills are very, very
    important to all of us.
        I appreciate the audience being here today and all the
    advocates that are advocating on behalf of our children. We
    appreciate you all, and let's work together.
        And, you know, like I said before, if there are any
    concerns with these bills, let's get them done early. And then,
    if you have any issues with the Senate, what have you, let's
    hash them out early so we can get this on the President's desk
    as soon as possible, these particular bills. The multiple
    bills, not just one bill.
        So I want to thank you all, and I want to thank my ranking
    member, as well.
        Ms. Schakowsky. I want to say something.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Yes, she would like to say something, as
    well.
        But--and then for those Members that have stuck to the
    subject matter of the hearing today, I appreciate them, as
    well.
        So I will yield back to--I will yield back my time, and
    then also the ranking member will have an opportunity.
        You are recognized.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr.--where are we?
        Mr. Bilirakis. Yes.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
    thank the witnesses.
        I really appreciate each and every one of you, but I also
    do want to acknowledge the people that are in the audience.
        If you are in the audience, and you had some connection to
    a problem with abuse of children, can you stand? If you are in
    any way connected to your concern about this issue, I would
    like to see you. Is there anybody here who actually has lost
    someone? Can you raise your hand? Yes, I see the one. Yes.
    Thank you very much for being here, for taking on this
    challenge.
        I do want to say that, particularly to Commissioner
    Slaughter, that while all of these particular issues that we
    want to deal with--I think will be best served if it is in the
    context of what the Federal Trade Commission does, that we will
    be able to really get down to who are the people who--the
    people--the--that are--hold on 1 second. There is a phone
    ringing in my ear.
        My belief is that we need to make sure that we have the
    protection that we need. We can't take it for granted. And that
    is why it is very important that we actually pass the
    legislation that the FTC had done. So I am very, very grateful.
        I think we are, Mr. Chairman, unanimous in our concern of
    the urgency of addressing the needs of our children and
    protecting them. That is what this was about today. So thank
    you very much for all of your good work.
        Mr. Bilirakis. OK. Very, very good.
        I ask unanimous consent that the documents on the staff
    document list be submitted for the record.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Bilirakis. I remind Members that they have 10 business
    days to submit questions for the record, and I ask the
    witnesses to respond to the questions promptly. Members should
    submit their questions by the close of business on April 9.
        So without objection--again, thank you for being here--
    without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
       [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              [all]