Transcript Highlights:

• There are some delays, as was discussed, for solutions that were part of the 2025 Budget Act.
• I do look forward to further discussions with the administration. I will be supporting AB 109.
• We have an opportunity to discuss these investments.
• So we really thank you for your time and we'll keep you posted on those discussions.
• So we really thank you for your time and we'll keep you posted on those discussions.

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard AB 109, the Budget Act of 2026, as the main item. Committee leaders described the legislative budget agreement as a balanced two-year plan with about $355.9 billion in total spending, $253 billion from the General Fund, and $36.5 billion in reserves. The Legislative Analyst and Department of Finance said the package assumes about $5.5 billion in higher revenues than the May Revision and uses those resources for a mix of spending changes, including higher Proposition 98 support, additional child care slots, housing and homelessness funding, delayed Medi-Cal reductions, and added support for counties, public hospitals, and distressed hospitals. The administration said the plan resembles the May Revision’s overall structure but includes new spending and revenue assumptions, and members noted that separate revenue trailer bills would be heard later in the week. Much of the committee discussion focused on Medi-Cal, H.R. 1, and the impact on immigrants, low-income workers, counties, and hospitals. Several senators criticized the budget for locking in savings from delayed or reduced Medi-Cal coverage and for not including a mechanism to restore eligibility, while administration and LAO staff said the package delays some reductions but does not automatically reinstate coverage. Finance staff said roughly 1.5 million to 2 million people with unsatisfactory immigration status would move from managed care to fee-for-service, with coverage largely unchanged except for certain services not federally allowed. Members also discussed county administrative funding, indigent care, public hospital support, and the expected rise in uncompensated care. Other topics included In-Home Supportive Services, child care, homelessness funding, Prop. 36, courthouse construction and new judgeships, transit and cap-and-invest/GGRF funding, local journalism, and workforce or reentry programs. Committee members split along party lines in their comments. Democratic members generally supported the agreement as a difficult but responsible compromise that protects core services, preserves reserves, and makes targeted investments in education, housing, health care, and justice system capacity. Republican members argued the budget relies on unrealistic revenue assumptions, does not sufficiently reduce spending, and includes costly policy choices and tax increases. Public testimony largely came from advocates and stakeholders who supported IHSS, Medi-Cal, child care, domestic violence services, hospitals, transit, and other programs, while some business and health plan representatives raised concerns about tax proposals and the shift from managed care to fee-for-service. The chair then moved the committee to public comment and indicated that the revenue bills would return later in the week; no final vote on AB 109 is reflected in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• “And, as I said, is grounded in the discussion is not about statute of limitations.
• You know, I think we've discussed this at length, and I appreciate the conversation.
• Wahab has discussed, keeping people in their home is extremely important.
• Have you had discussions with them? Not yet. Very close to today's... Yes, it was.
• I've met with staff and tried to discuss it.

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Summary: The committee heard SB 934 by Senator Wiener, which would extend the statute of limitations for malpractice claims arising from conversion therapy and clarify how expert testimony and scientific evidence may be used in those cases. Supporters, including a survivor, a licensed therapist, and LGBTQ advocacy groups, described conversion therapy as harmful and argued survivors often cannot come forward within current filing deadlines. Opponents, including civil justice and conservative legal groups, argued the bill was a workaround to recent Supreme Court rulings and raised concerns about free speech, evidentiary standards, and whether the bill could chill legitimate therapy. Committee members largely focused on whether the bill was limited to conversion therapy malpractice claims and not broader gender-affirming care; the bill was moved on a 7-2-1 vote to Senate Appropriations and placed on call. The consent calendar was also adopted on a 6-0 vote and placed on call. The committee then heard SB 1092 by Senator Allen, a housing bill aimed at manufactured home parks. The bill would give residents or their designated representatives a right to make a competitive bid when a park owner intends to sell, lease, or transfer a park, with notice and response periods intended to give residents time to organize financing. Supporters said the measure would preserve naturally occurring affordable housing, especially for older and lower-income residents, and help resident-owned cooperatives or nonprofits buy parks before investor buyers do. Opponents from park owner and realtor groups argued the bill would burden private property rights, devalue parks, and create unconstitutional takings and litigation risk. Committee questions centered on the bill’s timelines, whether residents would have 120 days to express interest and another 120 days to close, and whether the purchase agreement would be binding if accepted. The author and supporters said the second period was needed for due diligence and financing, while opponents said the structure could still delay sales and reduce market value. Several members expressed support for the bill’s goal but asked for further clarification or possible tightening of the timing and good-faith provisions; no final vote on SB 1092 was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• you what we discussed.
• As our discussion was, I don't smoke, you don't smoke, okay?
• As our discussion was, I don't smoke, you don't smoke, okay?
• Discussion. Signed in. All right, let's move the bill. Mr.
• Discussion. But that's all, if do you have any more questions?

Bills: SB1004 , SB1012 , SB1100 , SB1110 , SB1170 , SB1213 , SB1317 , SB1402 , SB1413 , SB1416 , SB1476 , SB1511 , SB1573 , SB1655 , SB1656 , SB1709 , SB1720 , SB1723 , SB1725 , SCR1040

Committee: House Judiciary

Keywords: sex offender registration, sex offender registry, A.R.S. 13-3821, sexual offenses, public safety, GPS monitoring, electronic monitoring, transient offender, homeless registrant, online identifiers, internet identifiers, sheriff notification, Department of Public Safety, DPS, DNA collection, juvenile adjudication, kidnapping of a minor, unlawful imprisonment of a minor, lifetime registration, community notification

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, any discussion? Seeing none, Vice Chair Wakai for the vote.
• Members,<00:47:15.839><c> any</c><00:47:16.160><c> discussion?
• Seeing none, Members, any discussion?
• Um, very grateful for the discussion, going back and forth.
• Um, yes, with that being said, members, any discussion?

Committee: Senate Economic Development and Tourism

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on a series of economic development, tourism, and tax measures. SB 2411 drew broad support from the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, the University of Hawaiʻi, the Chamber of Commerce, and Retail Merchants, with one technical amendment suggested to change a partnership term from six to seven years. Members asked about implementation and annual costs, and the department said it would follow up with cost information. HB 2583 HD1, relating to economic development and a loan loss program, also received support, but DBED noted the state already has the CBED loan program and suggested the proposal could be placed under that existing framework rather than creating a new program. HB 1612, based on business revitalization task force recommendations, was supported by DBED and several business and advocacy groups, including the Small Business Regulatory Review Board and Grassroot Institute. Testimony emphasized improving Hawaii’s business climate and using a ranking/reporting tool to measure progress, while one senator questioned whether the bill would simply fund another study instead of direct improvements. HB 1613, relating to HTDC, was supported by HTDC, the Chamber of Commerce, and startup and industry representatives who said a permanent marketing/branding specialist would help attract tech talent, founders, and investors; a member asked why the position was not in the budget, and HTDC said federal NIST funding uncertainty affected the request. HB 1614, also on economic development, was supported by HTDC and business groups, and members discussed whether the state was missing federal funds due to lack of matching dollars; HTDC said it was difficult to know, but matching funds could help leverage more federal grants. The committee then took up HB 2590 on taxation for creative industries. The Motion Picture Association and Hawaii Film Alliance strongly supported the bill, saying it would correct GET treatment for payroll service companies, restore motion picture and TV production as manufacturing, and repeal a 2022 provision affecting qualified expenses; the Department of Taxation said it would provide revenue-impact information later. Finally, HB 1950 HD1 on the transient accommodations tax drew strong support from DBED, HTA, the Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau, hotel and resort groups, and others, who argued for a dedicated tourism marketing fund and said the state needs more stable, long-term marketing investment. The Tax Foundation opposed the special fund approach, arguing it would reduce legislative flexibility. Members pressed witnesses on the appropriate percentage for the fund, with HTA suggesting 10% to 12% of TAT collections, and the discussion focused on how marketing spending relates to visitor spending, tax revenue, and long-term tourism competitiveness.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.
• We have a motion for consent.<00:12:13.200><c> Any</c><00:12:13.680><c> discussion?
• Any discussion? Seeing none, consent. Any discussion?
• </c><00:31:10.480><c> in</c> the fund that that is being discussed in the fund that that is being discussed
• I am in discussions with the Department of Insurance, Anthem, and HHS.

Committee: Senate Finance

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So I think that the time for the discussion and the exploration is really ripe today.
• So I think that the time for the discussion and the exploration is really ripe today.
• So I think that the time for the discussion and the exploration is really ripe today.
• </c><00:42:00.720><c> I</c> uh appreciate the thorough discussion.
• I uh appreciate the thorough discussion.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• But the facts and law have become very optional in this entire discussion.
• Representative, again, you and I discussed this, I think, a little bit.
• And you and I had to discuss this briefly, Representative.
• Any other discussion?
• I just think that I'm repeating myself throughout our discussion today.

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 61, which would raise aggravated battery on a peace officer from a third-degree to a second-degree felony in cases involving great bodily harm or a deadly weapon. The sponsor and supporters said the bill fixes an inconsistency in current law, where aggravated assault on an officer can be punished more severely than aggravated battery causing serious injury. Law enforcement representatives, the Chiefs Association, CBRC, and chamber representatives testified in support, and the New Mexico Sentencing Commission was noted as having endorsed the bill by a 6-3-4 vote. After questions about proportionality and plea bargaining, the committee voted due pass on HB 61 without objection. The committee then returned to House Bill 99, a medical malpractice reform bill, and several members made conflict-of-interest disclosures before debating amendments. The discussion focused heavily on the patient compensation fund, surcharge setting, and whether an advisory board or the superintendent should control rates. Amendments to segregate future fund money, require surcharges no lower than the advisory board’s recommendation, and create a commission with more actuarial and financial expertise were debated at length; the committee rejected the first two amendments. Members and witnesses argued over whether past undercharging of hospitals and doctors led to insolvency and taxpayer bailouts, and whether the bill should require more transparency and oversight. The committee also debated amendments on punitive damages. One proposal would have delayed punitive damage claims until after substantial discovery; opponents said it would conflict with civil procedure, prolong litigation, and likely be struck down. Another would have tied punitive damages to a multiple of compensatory damages or a percentage of net worth; supporters said that would better deter harmful conduct, while opponents said it would create uncertainty and more discovery. That amendment also failed. A final punitive-damages amendment would have removed caps in cases involving sexual assault or intoxication by a health care provider and protected the first $5 million of an independent provider’s personal assets; it too was rejected after members said it would shield egregious misconduct and go beyond the bill’s purpose.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, Representative Keshel, yeah, there was an extensive year-long discussion, so they discussed
• Long discussion, so they discussed everything.
• Any discussion, members?
• Any discussion on this?
• Chair, any discussion? Okay. Mr. Chair? Yes, any discussion? Sorry about that. Thank you. Mr.

Committee: House Government

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I was asked in a prior discussion, do we know the reason why for that?
• seeing none will the Secretary please call the roll Senator Further discussion?
• Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll assume. There are no amendments.
• I hope we can have a discussion going forward. I don't know if that is possible.
• I hope we can have a discussion going forward, but for today, I vote yes.

Summary: The committee first received a lengthy presentation from JLBC staff comparing the JLBC baseline budget with the executive proposal. Staff said the baseline shows about $577 million in available cash above statutory formulas, but that major items not included—especially tax conformity, ongoing health and school repair costs, and new federal Medicaid/SNAP administrative requirements—would significantly change the picture. The executive budget was described as about $1.1 billion larger than the JLBC baseline, driven by revenue and spending proposals including border security funding, tax conformity, higher sports betting taxes, elimination of a data center equipment exemption, short-term rental and water surcharges, SNAP administrative and error-rate costs, and several one-time items that staff argued appear ongoing. Members also discussed rising caseloads and supplementals in developmental disabilities, Medicaid/Access, and education, including concerns about declining enrollment, possible fraud in Access, and the SNAP error rate. The committee then heard and passed SB 1032, which appropriates $1.5 million from the General Fund in FY 2027 to fund the Independent Correctional Oversight Office. Testimony from the sponsor and advocates emphasized the need for independent oversight of the Department of Corrections, transparency, whistleblower reporting, and avoiding federal receivership. The bill was given a due pass recommendation on a 10-0 vote. Next, the committee considered several transportation appropriations. SB 1064, as amended, would appropriate $3 million to ADOT for improvements along West Route 66 in Flagstaff; the mayor and local planning officials testified that the corridor is congested and dangerous, with significant growth and crash history. The bill passed 7-3. SB 1059 would appropriate $9.2 million for an additional right-turn lane at SR 87 and SR 260 in Payson; supporters cited severe backups and safety concerns, and it passed 7-3. SB 1062 would appropriate $1 million for an additional left-turn lane at US 60 and Superstition Mountain Drive in Gold Canyon; supporters said the intersection is a major bottleneck and safety issue, and it passed 6-4. Finally, the committee began hearing SCR 1004, which would place on the ballot a prohibition on photo enforcement systems used by local authorities or state agencies for speeding and red-light violations. The sponsor and public testimony argued that automated enforcement is unpopular, unconstitutional, and prone to abuse, citing allegations of campaign money tied to ticket revenue and forged judicial signatures on citations. The transcript cuts off during public testimony, before any committee vote on SCR 1004 or the remaining bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• I was asked in a prior discussion, do we know the reason why for that?
• If there is no further discussion, Madam Secretary, please...
• Is there any further discussion?
• seeing none will the Secretary please call the roll Senator Further discussion?
• I hope we can have a discussion going forward, but for today, I vote yes.

Bills: SB1024 , SB1032 , SB1059 , SB1062 , SB1064 , SB1097 , SCM1001 , SCR1004

Committee: Senate Appropriations, Transportation and Technology

Keywords: roadable aircraft, registration, vehicle title, license plates, aviation safety, corrections oversight, funding, state budget, criminal justice, reform, appropriation, Department of Transportation, right turn lane, traffic improvement, infrastructure funding, transportation funding, authorization, road improvements, intersection safety, transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• You all have in your packet discussion drafts of these bills.
• Very good discussion. I hope we gave you some direction on that.
• If not, needs more discussion, that's good, that's fine.
• Any discussion on that, including...
• Having some of the discussion, I think has been very important.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> from my perspective as we're discussing from my perspective as we're discussing this<00:24:40.559
• We It's good to have that discussion?
• Thank you, members, for the discussion.
• Thank you, members, for the discussion.
• </c> for the discussion. for the discussion.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Any further discussion? The chair calls Charles Casio. Come up here, Charles.
• He's been very gracious, as is the staff, working with us and discussing it with us.
• Thanks for the good discussions that they have.
• That's what HB138, the bill that we discussed this morning, will help. us with.
• Okay, and you just talked about what we discussed earlier.

Bills: HB139 , HB1818 , HB1942 , HB1959 , HB2221 , HB2254 , HB2563 , HB2067 , HB2275 , HB3211 , HB139

Committee: House Insurance

Keywords: HB 1818, Texas Insurance Code, Texas Department of Insurance, commissioner of insurance, health maintenance organization, HMO, insurer, utilization review, preauthorization, prior authorization, medical necessity review, health care services, medical care, insurance regulation, insurance examination, regulatory oversight, confidential records, public information exception, Chapter 843, Chapter 1301

Transcript Highlights:

• contentious board discussions, contentious board discussions, um<00:20:10.559><c> Eileen</c><00:20:11.039
• </c> needs to be worked into the discussion needs to be worked into the discussion and<00:41:31.520><
• </c><00:42:20.240><c> that</c> actively engage in the discussion that actively engage in the discussion
• Any discussion?
• Okay, seeing none, uh I'd discussion?

Committee: Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection held a confirmation hearing on a long list of nominees to state boards and commissions. Early nominees included David Padilla to the State Boxing Commission, Steven Pine to the Board of Dentistry, Deborah McMmen to the Board of Acupuncture, Tiffany Lyn Hmel and Gabriel Aay to the Board of Veterinary Medicine, Nathan Eslin to the Cable Advisory Committee, John Takitani and Tony Lao to the Board of Professional Engineers, Architects, Surveyors and Landscape Architects, John Arbles to the State Board of Public Accountancy, and later nominees to the Board of Psychology, Board of Pharmacy, Hawaii Medical Board, Board of Speech Pathology and Audiology, Board of Chiropractic, Board of Physical Therapy, Board of Private Detectives and Guards, and the Real Estate Commission. Most nominations were for terms expiring in 2027, 2028, or 2029, with one Real Estate Commission term expiring in 2026. Testimony was overwhelmingly in support. DCCA and the relevant boards or commissions generally stood on written testimony supporting each nominee, and many individual supporters also testified, including professional associations, industry representatives, and community members. Several nominees briefly addressed the committee, expressing appreciation and interest in continuing or beginning service. The committee asked a few questions on some nominations, especially about the Real Estate Commission and the Board of Private Detectives and Guards, where members discussed condominium-related complaints, association practices, and whether the board could do more to assist security personnel; the nominee said staffing and authority limits constrained additional training or oversight. For the Real Estate Commission, members also asked about broader housing and market conditions, and the nominee said inventory shortages and housing supply issues remained a major concern. No opposition testimony or contentious votes were described in the transcript. The chair repeatedly asked whether there were questions or additional testimony, and after each nominee the committee generally moved on without objection. The hearing was focused on receiving testimony and evaluating the nominees for later confirmation rather than taking final action during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Are there any other questions or discussion? there any other questions or discussion?
• Any questions or discussion about the Any questions or discussion about the Any questions or discussion
• We have time this session to properly vet and discuss session to properly vet and discuss session to
• properly vet and discuss bills.
• And and and I'm I'm happy to discuss this. Somebody somebody last to discuss this.

Bills: SB199 , HB142 , SB86 , HB152 , HB297 , SB1 , SB1

Committee: House Ways and Means Education

Keywords: parental leave, state employees, local education agencies, adoption, work-life balance, family support, portable benefits, portable benefit account, independent contractor, gig worker, 1099 worker, freelancer, app-based worker, rideshare, delivery driver, worker benefits, health insurance, retirement benefits, life insurance, income replacement insurance

Transcript Highlights:

• If it wasn't discussed in the agenda, then, you know, unless obviously policies otherwise, it can be
• pertinent thing and we'll get it on an agenda at some point in time, even if it was something that was discussed
• Any discussion on the motion on the table? Okay, with no discussion, let's take a vote.
• Any discussion on the motion on the table? All right, seeing none, Secretary will take the vote.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The conference committee met on Senate Bill 2180, relating to the opportunity to provide public comment at meetings of public entities. Members reviewed the 2002 House version and a proposed 2003 amendment, which largely kept the House language but clarified wording and added a provision allowing public comment to be limited by policy to the current meeting’s agenda topics and at least one preceding meeting’s agenda topics. Several members discussed the balance between allowing public participation and keeping meetings orderly, with comments from both House and Senate members supporting the restriction as a practical compromise based on experience with local boards. Representative Vorey moved adoption of the 2003 amendment, seconded by Senator Wallen. The amendment was approved by majority vote on both the House and Senate sides. The committee then moved to accept SB 2180 as amended, and that motion also passed with majorities on both sides. The bill was declared a due pass by the conference committee and was to be forwarded to the appropriate chambers. The committee also designated carriers for the bill: Senator Castile on the Senate side and Representative Osley on the House side. The meeting then concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then discussion? All right, that... And then discussion? All right, that...
• Discussion, um, I just wanted to make sure I noted that I did look at every one of the territories and
• want to thank all the members of this group and hope we can continue moving forward with these discussions
• Any discussion? All right, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? The eyes have it. Your...

Bills: HB446 , HB485

Committee: House Baldwin County Legislation

Keywords: HB446, Daphne, Baldwin County, annexation, municipal boundary, corporate limits, local act, municipal incorporation, city limits expansion, zoning, land use, property tax, municipal services, Section 11-42-6, Judge of Probate, County Road 54 W, County Road 64, Rigsby Road, Highway 181, Alabama State Highway 181

Transcript Highlights:

• In the one particular case that we discussed in my office...
• Seeing no further discussion.
• I know that was a topic of discussion on this bill.
• It's more discussion with Access.
• I lost track of some of that discussion. It was fascinating.

Bills: SB1052 , SB1115 , SB1118 , SB1120 , SB1121 , SB1124 , SB1171 , SB1172 , SB1174 , SB1175 , SB1214 , SB1233 , SB1235 , SB1316 , SB1345 , SB1372 , SB1399 , SB1458 , SB1494 , SB1496 , SB1564 , SB1602 , SB1621 , SB1628 , SB1630 , SB1631 , SB1668 , SB1672 , SB1814 , SB1821

Committee: House Health & Human Services

Keywords: assisted living, health care, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, physician orders, informed consent, AHCCCS, remote work, state agency, employment, public health, housing, zoning, middle housing, urban development, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, historic preservation, radiation protection

Transcript Highlights:

• And we have already been in discussions to um apply for more funding. Sorry, Kai.
• And we have already been in discussions to um apply for more funding. Sorry, Kai.
• </c> And we have already been in discussions And we have already been in discussions to<00:58:42.920>
• </c><01:32:33.640><c> things</c><01:32:33.920><c> about</c> good at discussing things about good at discussing
• </c> input on the whole Kalaupapa discussion. input on the whole Kalaupapa discussion.

Bills: SB3253 , SB2401 , SB3169 , SB17 , SB3014 , SB3032 , SB1432 , SB2002 , SB2972 , SB3247

Committee: House Water & Land

Keywords: conservation, endangered species, wildlife preservation, native birds, biodiversity, sanctuary, nonprofit, DLNR, agricultural district, land use, chapter 195D, chapter 205, chapter 42F, state funding, public purpose, habitat restoration, predator-free sanctuary, ecosystem restoration, Zealandia, wildlife refuge

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land heard testimony on SB 5253 SD2 relating to conservation and SB 2401 relating to regional shoreline mitigation district, with the chair emphasizing short testimony limits and the need to finish before session. On SB 5253, DLNR said it stood on its written testimony and answered questions about the bill’s proposed nonprofit endangered species sanctuary. Members asked whether existing entities or agreements, such as land trusts, private landowners, and DLNR safe harbor agreements, could accomplish similar conservation goals without creating a new entity. DLNR said similar work already exists, but it was not aware of a comparable sanctuary model in the state. A member also questioned language suggesting for-profit businesses in the sanctuary, and DLNR said the intent appeared to be sales of outreach or similar materials, though it agreed that such activities could be handled by a nonprofit. The bulk of the hearing focused on SB 2401, which would create a regional shoreline adaptation/mitigation framework. The Department of the Attorney General said it had concerns about inconsistent use of the terms “mitigation” and “adaptation,” warning of possible title-subject issues. DLNR said it was neutral on the terminology and more concerned with the substance, and noted that the bill would not waive permits; any plan would still require environmental review and applicable state and county permits. DLNR also supported OHA’s recommendation to consider impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during regional planning, and said the bill’s language on temporary shoreline protection measures could help address the gap between emergency permits and longer-term planning while avoiding a hardening-only approach. The Office of Planning supported the regional planning concept but noted it is not a regulatory agency and would need to work with DLNR and the Land Board. OHA supported the bill’s planning-based approach but recommended amendments to require assessment of impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during plan development and to clarify that environmental review would still apply at the project level. Testifiers from the Ka‘anapali Steering Committee strongly supported the bill, saying it would provide a regional framework for ongoing erosion problems while preserving full regulatory authority and normal permitting, and they proposed amendments to standardize terminology, create a limited pathway for temporary shoreline protection, and address ownership and maintenance responsibilities. Members discussed the meaning of “mitigation” versus “adaptation,” the scope of shoreline hardening, and whether the bill would help the legislature take a broader, more holistic view of shoreline decisions. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any<01:00:24.240><c> other</c><01:00:24.480><c> discussion?</c> Any other discussion?
• Any other discussion?
• </c> &gt;&gt; any discussion on this amendment? &gt;&gt; any discussion on this amendment?
• </c> discussion or amendments to this bill? discussion or amendments to this bill?
• Any discussion on this bill?

Bills: HB0103 , HB0070 , HB0091

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Keywords: First Amendment, free speech, lawsuits, immunity, public participation, strategic lawsuits, foreign censorship, digital innovation, constitutional rights, Wyoming GRANITE Act, extraterritorial laws, civil actions, speech protection, legal jurisdiction, joint liability, artificial intelligence, social scoring, biometric data, privacy rights, government regulation