Transcript Highlights:

• >> Use your teacher voice. >> Use your teacher voice.
• They have data that they provide us that shows us our exact percentage.
• uses of seclusion.
• uses of seclusion.
• seclusion is used disproportionately. seclusion is used disproportionately.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Seclusion Working Group approved the minutes from its previous meeting by motion and vote. Members then began discussing a set of proposed recommendations submitted by Woodward, Havman, and Hull aimed at addressing concerns about the use of seclusion in special education settings. The recommendations focused on several areas: requiring a mental health professional on the IEP team before seclusion is added to a student’s plan; replacing passive parental consent with explicit written consent in the parent’s native language; limiting seclusion to students receiving setting 3 or setting 4 services; requiring annual review of seclusion frequency and duration data by the IEP team; and creating stronger monitoring and accountability through a reporting system modeled on Minnesota’s existing disproportionality process. The group also proposed mandatory annual staff training, more preventive crisis-intervention supports such as CPI and Ukeru, direct funding and technical assistance for districts, and incorporating restraint/seclusion data into disproportionality calculations. Members discussed how the proposed accountability system might work in practice, including whether a third party or parent reporting mechanism should be added. Woodward explained Minnesota’s current disproportionality framework, including year 1, year 2, and year 3 notifications and the possibility of required coordinated early intervening services if problems persist. Participants also raised concerns about whether schools should track law-enforcement involvement as an alternative or related response to student behavior; some noted that such data is already collected in certain district reporting systems and could be useful to monitor alongside seclusion data. The discussion remained ongoing, with no final action taken on the recommendations during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll walk through some of the retail use cases and how the retail sector is using AI.
• <00:01:53.680> and us and giving us the opportunity. and us and giving us the opportunity.
• very important to us. very important to us.
• of the high-risisk use cases. of the high-risisk use cases.
• actually want us there. actually want us there.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Intelligence Task Force met with a quorum present and approved the minutes from the August 14 meeting. The first presentation was from the National Retail Federation on artificial intelligence in the retail sector. NRF described AI use cases in three areas: consumer-facing tools such as chatbots, product descriptions, and marketing; employee-facing tools such as company-specific apps trained on employee manuals; and internal uses such as supply chain forecasting, inventory planning, fraud detection, cybersecurity, and coding support. The presenters said retail has been among the top deployers of AI and emphasized that the goal is to improve both customer and employee experience. NRF also outlined its principles for responsible AI use, organized around governance and risk management, customer engagement and trust, workforce applications, and business partner accountability. The group said retailers should maintain strong internal oversight, be transparent with customers, ensure compliance with existing laws, closely review workforce-related uses because they can be high-risk, and clearly define responsibilities between retailers and third-party developers. In policy discussion, NRF urged a tiered approach focused first on high-risk uses such as hiring, health care, financial, mortgage, and rental decisions, warned against fragmented rules that could favor only the largest firms, and encouraged voluntary standards and worker upskilling incentives. In response to a question about dynamic pricing, NRF said its members do not target consumers based on pricing and offered to follow up with more information. The committee then moved to a follow-up discussion on energy policy and data centers, hearing from Bartley Cleland of NetChoice. He explained that AI runs largely in data centers and that cloud computing shifts processing and storage away from individual devices, which he argued improves efficiency and can reduce costs. He said electricity demand has been rising over time and that AI will increase compute-related electricity use, but framed electricity as a normal input to economic growth. No votes or formal actions were taken after these presentations.

Transcript Highlights:

• it is used to harm people.
• Don't use it for this, this, this, and this. Don't use it for this, this, and this.
• I'm using it as it should be used. And it's going to perform. transparency.
• I'm using it as it should be used. And it's going to perform. Okay, I'm using it correctly.
• It could also be used.

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Assembly Health and Privacy Committees focused on generative AI in health care, with opening remarks emphasizing both its potential to improve care and its risks around privacy, bias, liability, workforce impacts, and unequal access. Chair Bauer-Kahan and Chair Bonta framed the discussion around how California can encourage beneficial innovation while protecting patients, especially given the sensitivity of health data and the possibility that AI could worsen existing disparities if not carefully governed. The first panel featured representatives from Cedars-Sinai, Kaiser Permanente, Penguin AI, and Google, who described current uses of AI such as ambient clinical scribes, nursing documentation tools, imaging triage, maternal-fetal risk prediction, and administrative automation. Speakers said these tools can reduce clinician burden, improve patient experience, speed treatment, and in some cases improve outcomes, including a reported mortality benefit from a Kaiser predictive model and faster thrombectomy times at Cedars-Sinai. Members raised concerns about accuracy with accents and multilingual visits, whether predictive tools could reinforce bias or lead to more interventions such as C-sections, and how to ensure a human remains in the loop for important decisions. The second panel, including representatives from the California Health Care Foundation, UC Berkeley, and Stanford, focused on policy and governance challenges. Testimony highlighted examples of AI supporting homelessness outreach and community health work, but also warned that biased algorithms can encode inequities, especially when trained on data that reflect under-treatment of Black, rural, or low-income patients. Witnesses urged clearer standards for trustworthy AI, stronger monitoring and governance structures, better data access for accountability, and attention to the safety net’s limited resources. Several speakers argued that states should require health systems to have AI governance processes, clarify liability between developers and deployers, and regulate downstream uses of AI while preserving access to data for lifesaving research and oversight.

Transcript Highlights:

• I cannot offer them a path out from using dirty needles or create a way to use safer.
• To use is somehow accepting illicit drug use is going to be tolerated.
• We have a high, you know, minority population around us and within us.
• who use drugs.
• It saves us in other social services programs. It saves us money in other programs.

Summary: The meeting focused on Missouri’s substance use prevention and treatment system, with repeated emphasis on recovery support services, peer support, recovery housing, transportation, and harm reduction. Dan Haniken of Into Action described his own recovery from addiction and incarceration and argued that treatment alone is not enough; he urged greater investment in recovery housing, peer support, employment, and community-based supports that help people stay sober and avoid relapse. Members asked about funding sources, program capacity, referrals, treatment court, transportation, and how Into Action supports people on medication-assisted treatment (MAT). Haniken said the organization is funded through a mix of federal, state, county, city, foundation, and private donations, and that housing and transportation remain major barriers, especially because support is often funded for too short a period compared with the longer time people need to stabilize. Matt Cushman of the Raytown Fire Protection District gave a strong endorsement of harm reduction, including naloxone distribution, syringe service programs, and broader decriminalization of harm reduction tools. He argued that stigma is a major barrier to care and that Missouri should expand access to clean needles, test strips, and other services, while also improving access to MAT in jails and communities. Committee members questioned the evidence base, the role of faith-based providers, and whether safe consumption sites should be pursued; Cushman said syringe exchange decriminalization should be the immediate priority, while safe consumption sites are a longer-term issue. He also described community paramedicine and mobile integrated health as valuable but funding-dependent, and said naloxone distribution is improving but still uneven, especially in rural and minority communities. Representatives from Central Ozarks Medical Center and Four Rivers Community Health Center highlighted the importance of peer support specialists, community health workers, care coordinators, and wraparound services in rural health centers. COMC’s Morgan McClure and Monet Lehman described a jail reentry program in Pulaski County, with Lehman sharing her trauma and recovery story and explaining how she helps incarcerated people prepare for release with housing, employment, benefits, transportation, and treatment connections. Four Rivers’ Devon Polarys and Cassandra Trout said their CEO would change Missouri policy to allow FQHCs to receive reimbursement for peer support and community health worker services similar to CCBHCs, arguing that these roles are essential for addressing barriers like transportation, housing, food insecurity, and insurance. Members discussed confusion over reimbursement rules, the differences between FQHCs and CCBHCs, and the need for better funding and clearer policy for peer and community health worker services. No votes were taken; the discussion ended with a suggestion to bring in a subject matter expert on community health workers for a future session.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've worked with other community members and groups to say as we use AI, responsible use, security,
• We actually, in our policy, have prohibited uses and high-risk uses that then require additional review
• So in this use case, there's profile data that they can choose to populate or not, and choose to use
• The other, I think, really important point here is that in that use case, not once did I use the term
• Please join us.

Summary: The committee held a work session focused on technology in government, AI, broadband, and digital equity. Seattle CTO Rob Lloyd described the city’s AI strategy, emphasizing responsible use, privacy, security, community input, and data strategy. He said Seattle is using small pilots and partnerships to test AI for tasks such as public records processing, infrastructure inspection, and permitting, while keeping humans as the final decision-makers. Members asked about bias, liability, training on best practices, labor involvement, and public records; Lloyd said AI should remain an assistant tool, not a replacement for human judgment, and that Seattle is still testing solutions for records requests and permitting. WATech CTO Nick Stow and Deputy Director Mark Quimby discussed the state’s broader AI policy, the generative AI executive order, a sandbox with more than 15 agencies, and use cases including a resident portal, cybersecurity, and wildfire detection. They stressed consent, closed systems, human-centered design, and the need to govern all forms of AI, not just generative AI. Committee members raised concerns about federal data access, labor issues, and wildfire detection effectiveness. Spokane County IT staff described a more restrictive approach to AI, citing privacy, bias, and cyber risks. The county standardized on Microsoft Copilot as its only approved chat-style AI tool, blocked other AI chat platforms, and requires human review of all AI-generated content. They said AI is also being used by criminals for phishing and deepfakes, underscoring the need for strong policy and security controls. The committee also received an update from the Attorney General’s AI Task Force. Yuki Ishizuka said the task force has 19 members and eight subcommittees covering ethics, consumer protection, labor, health care, public safety, education, government efficiency, cybersecurity, and industry/energy. The task force is working toward an interim report due December 1, 2025 and a final report due July 1, 2026, and is reviewing recommendations through public forums and advisory committees. Ishizuka warned that a federal budget reconciliation provision could bar states from enforcing AI regulations for 10 years, and several members voiced support for state authority and asked about possible 2026 legislation. The committee then heard updates on broadband and digital equity. Commerce’s Dave Pringle said the BEAD broadband program is being reshaped by new NTIA guidance, which removed or reduced emphasis on several prior priorities, and Washington is now working under an expedited process to submit its state application by September 4. He noted that no projects have been built yet, that four counties did not receive applications in round two, and that the state is trying to keep applicants engaged through office hours and a shortened review window. The Office of Equity and the Digital Equity Forum reported increased participation, new members, and ongoing outreach to tribal, rural, and underserved communities, while previewing recommendations such as creating an interdepartmental digital equity team and improving data use. Finally, Lumen’s Robert Thoms described private-sector broadband deployment challenges, including permitting, regulation, and the economics of extending fiber, while noting continued investment in overbuild projects, a $30 low-cost service option tied to the former ACP, and work with the state, tribes, and libraries. No votes were taken; the meeting consisted of presentations and member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• FRAUD DETECTION IS A BIG USE OF AI. AI GETS USED A LOT FOR FRAUD DETECTION.
• , THE EXISTING INSURANCE LAWS THEN GOVERN THE USE OF THOSE AND GOVERN THE USE OF THOSE WELL.
• BECAUSE THE CRIMINALS ARE USING AI, THE INSURANCE COMPANIES MUST USE AI AS WELL FOR THREE REASONS.
• IT MATTERS NOT TO US HOW THE DECISION WAS MADE THAT CAUSED THE DISPUTE WHEN A CONSUMER CONTACTS US.
• US ACROSS FLORIDA THE MORE FOR ALL OF US AND IT WILL HELP ALL OF US ACROSS FLORIDA THE MORE WORK WE PUT

Transcript Highlights:

• So any use of seclusion is an emergency use. Mr.
• Um, we use breaks, we use other calming strategies.
• Um, we use breaks, we use other calming strategies.
• Um, we use breaks, we use other calming strategies.
• Um, we use breaks, we use other calming strategies.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But remember how long it us?
• use.
• us again?
• So it's a short survey that is used to screen patients with cannabis use disorder.
• And you see here are the Orange boss give us the percent of patients who had to kind of use use disorder

Transcript Highlights:

• and non-consumptive use.
• Thirty minutes of AI use, roughly 2.6 cups of water are used.
• Those two uses by far demand most of our water use as a nation.
• How much energy are they using? And of course, there's an indirect water use.
• multi-use it?

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's time-consuming for us to even produce a minimally useful..." Dr.
• This issue is important to us, but it does not define us.
• We are choosing to use this. Many of us are choosing to use this.
• We are choosing to use this product because it helps us.
• You use no heat.

Summary: The House Committee on Public Health heard House Bill 5, a proposal to ban THC products outside the Texas Compassionate Use Program while allowing non-intoxicating CBD and CBG products under tighter regulation. Chair Van Deaver gave a lengthy background on the 2018 federal Farm Bill and Texas’s 2019 hemp law, arguing that the lack of guardrails allowed a large, unregulated THC market to develop. HB 5 would impose licensing fees, product registration, testing and inspection requirements, and restrictions intended to keep products away from children. Invited witnesses from law enforcement strongly supported the bill. Steve Dye of the Texas Police Chiefs Association and Brian Hawthorne of the Sheriffs’ Association of Texas argued that THC consumables are widely mislabeled, often far more potent than advertised, and linked to youth access, impaired driving, and organized crime. Both said regulation would be ineffective and would amount to legalization, while a ban would be easier for officers to enforce. They also emphasized support for the Texas Compassionate Use Program and said medical THC should remain available. Dr. Peter Stout of the Texas Association of Crime Lab Directors and Alice Amelot of Texas DPS testified as resource witnesses about forensic testing. They said current lab resources are already stretched thin, that quantitative testing for THC and related cannabinoids is expensive and time-consuming, and that a ban would simplify enforcement because labs could focus on presence/absence testing rather than concentration. Amelot said DPS labs are neutral on the bill but explained that mislabeled products and inaccurate certificates of analysis are common. Committee members asked about traffic safety, impairment, youth use, and the costs of enforcement and lab testing; witnesses repeatedly said the bill would reduce complexity for law enforcement but that any approach would still require more resources for labs.

Transcript Highlights:

• want us to know.
• This project has taught us how to use our voices, speak up about issues that affect us, and begin to
• This project has taught us how to use our voices, speak up about issues that affect us, and begin to
• Deborah Asquith, are you with us? Deborah Asquith, are you with us?
• Just tell us what I don’t know. Just tell us one.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee opened a public hearing on 41 bills related to school climate and safety, with chairs Jason Lewis and Ken Gordon outlining procedures and noting more than 125 witnesses. The first major topic was the “Study Act” on cell phones in schools and related social media restrictions (House 666/Senate 335). Secretary of Education Pat Tutwiler and Attorney General Andrea Campbell testified in strong support, arguing that bell-to-bell phone-free policies would improve student focus, reduce anxiety and distraction, and support mental health. Several legislators also supported the approach, though Representative Jeff Turco and Senator John Keenan emphasized narrower bills focused only on school-day phone restrictions rather than broader social media regulation. Senator John Velis likewise backed a comprehensive school-hours restriction, citing student distraction and mental health concerns. Representative Tarsky described successful implementation of a Yondr pouch system in a school where he served as principal, saying it improved engagement and reduced bullying and discipline issues. The committee then heard testimony on a bill to prohibit Native American mascots in public schools (Senate 312/House 575). Senator Joe Comerford, Brittany Wally, and Rhonda Anderson all urged passage, saying Native mascots are dehumanizing, harmful to Native youth, and inconsistent with civil rights and educational values. They described support from tribal nations and noted that many Massachusetts schools have already changed mascots, but some still resist. The hearing also included testimony on school start times (House 647/Senate 360), where middle school students Caroline Duffy and Emery Jarvis described exhaustion and survey data showing widespread sleep deprivation. Former educator Telia Jacobs, former principal Rep. Tarsky, and others argued that later start times would improve health, learning, and student well-being, while acknowledging transportation and scheduling challenges. Zoriana Petrosian, who helped write one of the bills as a student, said the state already has enough research to act now. Additional bills drew testimony on related school issues. Dr. Raul Fernandez supported a bill promoting racially integrated schools (Senate 324), citing a recent advisory council report showing large disparities in segregated schools and urging DESE to develop a statewide integration strategy. On safe firearm storage education (House 548/Senate 397), multiple witnesses from Grassroots for Gun Violence Prevention and school communities supported annual school-based education about secure storage, saying it would help prevent child access to unsecured firearms and build on local resolutions already adopted in some districts. The committee also heard testimony on bills to expand career and academic plans (House 533/Senate 438), with speakers saying more structured planning would help students make informed college and career choices. Later, testimony on child sexual abuse prevention and survivor support bills described the prevalence of abuse, the need for training in schools and youth-serving organizations, and the importance of extending compensation and prevention measures. Throughout the hearing, chairs repeatedly closed bills with no witnesses and moved the agenda forward, but no votes were taken in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• WE HAVE A CHIEF AI OFFICER NOW HELP US NAVIGATE THROUGH US.
• SOME OF THE OTHER USE CASES AS WAS MENTIONED WE HAVE USED IT FOR SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT.
• A COUPLE OTHER USE CASES.
• DESIGNED TO BE USED.
• YOU WANT TO KICK US OFF. >> I DON'T KNOW WHO TO DIRECT US TO. PERHAPS MR. KATO.

Transcript Highlights:

• In his letter of transmittal, the Governor told us why. He gave us two reasons.
• That's not what they asked us to do. They didn't ask us to ignore it.
• He's asking us to ignore the law. Are you kidding me? He's asking us to ignore the law.
• They see us all together.
• And now the governor has asked us, he's told us— to do that.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Representatives us be here Wanko excused.
• Can we use AI and then the chief of staff and the agency secretary, the sides do we want to use AI?
• So for us, I cannot be used to develop source codes to create official documentation.
• We used Ph I we use patient data, those those, but it's in a very controlled environment.
• What what's the intent of the use?

Transcript Highlights:

• Just give us a couple examples.
• Thanks for having us.
• It's us. We're paying for this.
• against us.
• use Massachusetts law prohibits using an individual's name, portrait, or picture for commercial use without

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a hearing on several artificial intelligence bills, opening with remarks about the 9/11 anniversary and then broad statements from the co-chairs about AI’s promise and risks. Chair Farley-Bouvier and Senator Moore emphasized the need for guardrails, transparency, and worker and consumer protections, while Senator Finegold described Senate Bill 37, which would create a framework for AI model training with safety assessments, audits, incident reporting, Attorney General oversight, and workforce reporting. Members also discussed Massachusetts’ position relative to other states and the need for state action in the absence of federal regulation. A large portion of the hearing focused on the Fair Act, House 77 and Senate 35, which would limit workplace surveillance, restrict collection of biometric and location data, require notice and human review for automated employment decisions, and protect workers from retaliation. Labor leaders, including AFL-CIO, AFSCME, AFT, SEIU, building trades, and other worker representatives, testified in support, describing harms from bossware, automated benefits denials, hiring and promotion screening, scheduling, and monitoring in workplaces ranging from health care and education to manufacturing and construction. They argued that AI systems are already affecting wages, benefits, safety, and job security, and that Massachusetts should act now to set clear rules. The committee also heard testimony on House Bill 74, which would require informed consent and clear contract terms for digital replicas of voices and likenesses, with SAG-AFTRA representatives supporting the bill as a protection for performers and creators. Another major topic was Senate Bill 51 on social media algorithm accountability and transparency; child safety advocates, researchers, and a public health expert described harms from engagement-based algorithms, including exposure to harmful content, eating disorders, and youth mental health impacts, and supported independent audits and public reporting. A few industry and civil liberties witnesses supported regulation but urged balance, warning against overly burdensome rules while acknowledging the need for privacy, transparency, and accountability. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the hearing excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• So where is a groundwater use permit required? It's required for new uses.
• State land use districts.
• to urban use.
• Billiggon used the phrase extra... Rep. Billiggon used the phrase extra credit.
• They're independent of us.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• on consumptive use of water for us. on consumptive use of water for us.
• Industrial use is a recognized beneficial use just as irrigation, stock watering, and municipal uses
• domestic use, but we use 2,629 to water yards.
• c><02:10:42.000> 2629 our domestic use but we use 2629 our domestic use but we use 2629 to<02:
• as a use by right. as a use by right.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In his letter of transmittal, the Governor told us why. He gave us two reasons.
• All I know is what the rest of us know. All I know is what the rest of us know.
• That's not what they asked us to do. They didn't ask us to ignore it.
• to ask us. ...this state, and they are looking at us to ask us the question: are we going to continue
• And now the governor has asked us, he's told us... To do that.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituted with House Bill 1D, both establishing Florida’s congressional districts. The sponsor, Senator Gates, explained that the Governor had transmitted a proposed redistricting plan on short notice and argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is legally permissible, citing population growth and the Governor’s view that race-based provisions in the Fair Districts Amendment are unconstitutional. He repeatedly said the Legislature was not being asked to prove the Governor’s legal theory, only to consider the proposal, and noted that no amendments were offered. A lengthy question-and-answer period followed, with senators raising concerns about the rushed process, lack of statewide public hearings, and the map’s effects on minority communities, compactness, communities of interest, and partisan fairness. Senators questioned whether the map cracked Latino and Black communities, whether partisan data was used, whether the Governor’s office had outside consultants, and whether the plan complied with the Florida Constitution, the Fair Districts Amendment, and the Voting Rights Act. Gates generally deferred on legal conclusions, said the Governor’s representatives had testified the map was race-neutral and used political data only as one factor, and emphasized that any constitutional challenge would be for the courts. After a motion to temporarily postpone failed by a recorded vote of 12 yeas to 23 nays, the Senate continued debate. Senators Rouson, Bernard, and others spoke in opposition, arguing the proposal was rushed, partisan, and harmful to communities of interest and minority voting power. Gates maintained that the Governor had a constitutional prerogative to propose the map and that the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend it. The House companion bill was then substituted for the Senate bill, read a third time, and the chamber moved into final debate on the congressional redistricting plan.

Transcript Highlights:

• and she hears from us.
• So when we're using data in studies, you'll see us aligning with what was asked and how it was used in
• under tobacco use.
• and nicotine use.
• We want to understand more about what they're using, why they're using it, when they're using it, and

Transcript Highlights:

• In his letter of transmittal, the Governor told us why. He gave us two reasons.
• That's not what they asked us to do. They didn't ask us to ignore it.
• They see us all together.
• to ask us. ...this state, and they are looking at us to ask us the question: Are we going to continue
• And now the governor has asked us; he's told us. To do that.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituting identical House Bill 1D, to establish Florida’s congressional districts. The opening prayer and Pledge of Allegiance were followed by procedural remarks, then extensive floor discussion focused almost entirely on the redistricting proposal, its timing, and its legal basis. Senator Gaetz, explaining the bill, said the Governor had transmitted the map two days earlier, argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is not prohibited by law, and said the Governor’s stated reasons were to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts. He also said the legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal. Much of the debate centered on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Louisiana decision and whether it affected Florida’s Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators Smith, Rouson, Sharief, Polsky, Arrington, Bracey Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and others questioned the short notice, lack of public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony, and whether the map diluted minority voting strength or fragmented communities of interest. Gaetz repeatedly said he was not offering legal opinions, that the Governor’s counsel believed the Fair Districts race-based provisions were inconsistent with federal law, and that any legal challenge would be for the courts. He also said the Governor’s mapmaker reported using census and demographic data, along with political data as one of many inputs, and claimed the map’s compactness was comparable to the current map. A motion by Senator Smith to temporarily postpone consideration of the bill failed on a 12-23 vote. After the Senate returned from a 30-minute break to review the new Supreme Court decision, debate continued. The chamber then substituted HB 1D for SB 8D, read the House bill, and advanced it to third reading. The transcript ends during debate on final passage, with Senators Rouson and Bernard speaking in opposition and arguing the map was procedurally rushed, legally vulnerable, and politically motivated.