Transcript Highlights:

• Um, I think it's not right and I don't think it's fair to, um, have this subjective interpretation sort
• look at your connections carefully before you bring forward any funding or policy that might be interpreted
• sort of pinned on Senator interpretation sort of pinned on Senator Champion.<00:02:53.840> I<
• <00:03:38.959> in<00:03:39.200> one policy that might be interpreted in one policy
• that might be interpreted in one way<00:03:39.599> or<00:03:39.920> the<00:03:40.080>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:29:53.760> to translation dictionary or interpreter to translation dictionary or interpreter
• doesn't want to uh hire in interpreters doesn't want to uh hire in interpreters to<00:30:57.120>
• interpreter or anything of that nature. interpreter or anything of that nature.
• However, when we all migrate into the real world, electronics devices, interpreters have become, you
• have become you devices interpreters have become you know<00:43:30.480> where<00:43:30.720>

Bills: HB274, HB287, HB301, HB157, HB254, HB88, HB274, HB287, HB301, HB157, HB254, HB88

Keywords: Crenshaw County, county board of education, school board, board of education, term limits, term length, elected officials, local constitutional amendment, Alabama Constitution, education governance, local legislation, November 2026 election, ballot measure, constitutional amendment, school board elections, law enforcement, transparency, reporting, public safety, regulation

Transcript Highlights:

• Try to do your best. interpretation, could you please comment interpretation, could you please comment
• interpret this bill?
• you<02:43:31.840> could personal interpretation, but you could personal interpretation
• Is it also your interpretation um is.
• interpret local taxes? interpret local taxes?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Psychological Services Court interpreter Psychological Services Court interpreter jury<00:08:31.479
• the payment rates for court interpreters the payment rates for court interpreters and<00:08:47.480
• The judiciary is statutorily required to provide interpreters, psychological exams, and jury services
• But third and final question, if I may, Madam Chair: psychological interpreter percentage increases.
• events are going up um and interpreter events are going up um and those<00:40:45.680> are<00:

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee met to approve the January 16 minutes and then heard a budget presentation from State Court Administrator Jeff Shorba on behalf of the Minnesota judicial branch. Shorba described the courts’ structure, mission, and workload, noting 322 judges, about 2,800 staff, roughly 1 million district court filings annually, and a current budget of about $479 million. He emphasized the branch’s constitutional obligation to provide fair and timely access to justice and said the courts are funded almost entirely through legislative appropriations. He also highlighted recent accomplishments made possible by prior legislative funding, including eliminating the pandemic felony and gross misdemeanor backlog, expanding remote and hybrid hearings, improving courtroom technology, sustaining treatment courts, and increasing pay for interpreters and psychological examiners. Shorba outlined the judicial branch’s 2026–27 budget request, which he said totals a 12% increase over the starting biennial base. Major requests included $77.3 million in 2026–27 and $104 million in 2028–29 for a 6% judicial salary increase and related compensation costs; $5.1 million in 2026–27 and $1.76 million in 2028–29 for digital accessibility compliance with new federal ADA rules; $4 million in 2026–27 and $800,000 in 2028–29 to modernize justice partner access to court records; $7.2 million in 2026–27 to raise pay for contract psychological examiners; and $18 million in 2026–27 to increase juror pay from $20 to $100 per day and align mileage rates with federal rates. He also discussed ongoing funding needs for interpreter services, jury costs, cybersecurity, and other statutorily required court services, saying temporary funding provided in the prior session will expire and that permanent support is needed. Members asked questions about treatment courts, employee bargaining, and mental health competency issues. Representative Eric requested more detail on funding for newly launched and existing treatment courts, and Shorba said many treatment courts begin with federal grants before transitioning to state support after about three years. He confirmed the judicial branch negotiates its own employee contracts rather than the executive branch doing so, and said the branch has three unions plus many unrepresented employees. On mental health and competency, Shorba said the branch is focused on obtaining timely psychological evaluations and is not responsible for treatment services themselves, but acknowledged a shortage of examiners and treatment beds and said a related competency board would be testifying the following week. No votes or formal actions were taken beyond adoption of the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• There seemed to be some issues with the interpretation of the statute that was, kind of, the worst I'd
• Also, there was an interpretation by ABC for some vendors that need to be accommodated.
• Also, there was an<00:06:02.600> interpretation<00:06:04.000> by<00:06:04.200> ABC
• c><00:06:04.920> for<00:06:05.080> some an interpretation by ABC for some an interpretation
• <00:06:48.240> that ABC now has an interpretation that ABC now has an interpretation that

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The Legislature creates laws, the executive branch enforces laws, and the judicial branch interprets
• Reasonable force is left to be interpreted by a judge or a jury as it is with other standards.
• The Legislature creates laws, the executive branch enforces laws, and the judicial branch interprets
• Reasonable force is left to be interpreted by a judge or a jury as it is with other standards.
• by a judge or a jury as be interpreted by a judge or a jury as it<00:02:50.640> is<00:02:50.879

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So I want to clarify that, so make sure that, you know, sometimes interpretation, as these things get
• that you know sometimes interpretation that you know sometimes interpretation as<00:29:59.720>
• they interpret it sometimes as what they interpret it sometimes as different<00:30:07.679> because
• Is that an accurate interpretation of this bill as long as it is licensed?
• Is that an accurate interpretation of this bill as long as it is licensed?

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee met with a quorum, approved the February 19 minutes, and opened with guest recognitions and a brief prayer for a colleague who had a medical episode. The committee then took up Senate Joint Resolution 66, which would create a task force to study Advanced Air Mobility and related policy issues in Kentucky. The sponsor and witnesses described AAM as emerging eVTOL “flying car” technology, argued Kentucky has strong aviation and logistics assets to compete for the industry, and said the task force would include legislative, KYTC, and industry representatives. Senators asked about the technology and potential uses, including rapid transport of medical specialists. The resolution was reported favorably after roll call, with several members expressing support and at least one member noting a desire for more information while still voting yes. The committee next considered Senate Bill 38, as amended by committee substitute, dealing with school bus stop-arm safety cameras. The sponsor cited survey data showing hundreds of illegal school-bus passings in Kentucky and argued the bill would help change driver behavior by allowing, but not requiring, school districts to use camera systems funded through violators rather than district budgets. Testimony emphasized that the measure is voluntary, vendor-neutral, provides an appeals process in district court, limits camera activation to when the stop arm is deployed, and keeps revenues within the school district and court system. Representative David Hale supported the bill, sharing a personal story about a near-miss involving a child crossing after a bus stop. The committee approved the committee substitute and then reported SB 38 favorably with the expression of opinion that it should pass with the committee substitute attached. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 63 on street-legal special purpose vehicles. The sponsor and Backroads of Appalachia representatives said the bill would define and regulate these vehicles, while expressly excluding farm and agricultural vehicles from its requirements. They explained the bill would require inspection, registration, and a motorcycle plate for qualifying vehicles, set limits on where and how far they can be driven, and allow local or state restrictions where applicable. Supporters framed the bill as an economic development measure for Eastern Kentucky and the broader state, citing tourism, trail-system spending, and examples from other states. A committee member asked for clarification about farm-to-farm use, and the witness confirmed the bill would not affect agricultural use. The transcript ends during discussion of SB 63, before any final committee action is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• > children interpretation requires that children interpretation requires that children file<00:03
• Um, in other words, this interpretation.
• What is the court interpreting? What is the court's interpretation? That's not... Thank you.
• What what is the court interpreting? What what is the court interpreting?
• So yeah, interpretation right there.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and it wound up with an interpretation that favored EEC?
• He simply agreed to a different interpretation of it.
• And frankly, it was an interpretation that both of the parties, EEC and AEJG, agreed to.
• That language is specifically in the statute, and it is within the board's authority to interpret the
• The board is free to interpret the law as written to the facts of this case.

Summary: The Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings held oral argument before the Legislative Ethics Board in the matter of Representative Tara Simmons, docketed as Legislative Ethics Board case 2025-5. The hearing concerned Simmons’ motion for summary judgment in an ethics complaint alleging violations of RCW 42.52.020 (conflicts of interest) and RCW 42.52.070 (special privileges), based on her work involving an EEC proviso, her employment relationship with EEC, a campaign surplus donation connected to AEJG and Jerry Stone, her involvement in an AEJG-EEC subcontract dispute, and related text messages with Anthony Powers. No evidence was taken; the session focused on legal argument over whether the alleged facts, if accepted as true, were sufficient to establish violations as a matter of law. Simmons’ counsel argued the complaint was legally insufficient because the alleged actions benefited her employer or others, not Simmons herself, and that existing board opinions allow legislators to support employers absent a direct personal benefit. He also argued the board was effectively trying to adopt a new bright-line rule prohibiting legislators from funding employers, which he said would be an improper retroactive change. Board staff, through Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisentrout, opposed summary judgment and argued the facts were enough to show Simmons had an indirect financial or other interest in EEC’s funding, that her job duties and legislative actions created conflicts, and that her actions around the donation, subcontract dispute, and text messages could be viewed as using her position to secure special privileges. A board member asked whether the allegations themselves were sufficient and whether the standard required assuming the facts as alleged; staff responded that the motion failed because the record contained sufficient facts to proceed, and that any factual disputes should be resolved at hearing. After rebuttal, the ALJ closed the oral argument and turned the matter over to the Legislative Ethics Board for deliberation. No ruling was issued during the hearing, and the board was to decide whether to grant the summary judgment motion or set the case for an evidentiary hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• whole, and there did not appear to be any statute that could be used by the board to implement, interpret
• 541A:1, XV, which is the definition of a rule, which requires a statute that can be implemented, interpreted
• or<00:06:41.680> make<00:06:41.919> specific<00:06:42.880> uh implement, interpret
• or make specific uh implement, interpret or make specific uh statute<00:06:43.600> of<00:06:44.240
• or made specific by the interpreted or made specific by the agency<00:07:19.919> and<00:07:20.080

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: JCAR convened with a quorum, approved the minutes, and approved the consent agenda after removing two items for separate review: Board of Podiatry rule 2025-25 and Guardian ad Litem Board rule 2025-36. The Podiatry item concerned organizational rules deleting language on subcommittees. Committee members and OPLC counsel discussed whether the board still had statutory authority to create investigative or other subcommittees. OPLC said the prior authority had been repealed and no current statute appeared to support subcommittees for that board; members noted the issue may require a broader legislative fix. The committee then approved the Podiatry rule. The committee next considered rule 2025-36 involving CASA advocate training. Staff said the rule requires CASA individuals to follow certification, continued-status, and ethics provisions, and noted a dispute between CASA and the board over applicability. OPLC explained the rulemaking had been delayed for years due to quorum issues and substantive discussions, and acknowledged it should have been done sooner. The committee approved the rule after brief discussion. Finally, the committee reviewed Department of Health and Human Services rule 2560 on home visits for postpartum and newborn assessment. Staff noted the rules had expired in 2023 but the department continued reimbursement under statutory authority and the Medicaid state plan. Concerns about broad language were addressed through a conditional approval and revisions, and DHHS said it had no further comments. The committee expressed appreciation for the changes and approved the item before the meeting ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• The department could interpret that in a couple of ways and indeed did interpret it in a couple of ways
• The department could interpret that in a couple of ways and indeed did interpret it in a couple of ways
• It could also be interpreted to that.
• So who specifically be interpreted.
• 23:03.040> now So the department's interpretation now So the department's interpretation now is

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and it wound up with an interpretation that favored EEC.
• He simply agreed to a different interpretation of it.
• And frankly, it was an interpretation that both of the parties, EEC and AEG, agreed to.
• That language is specifically in the statute, and it is within the board's authority to interpret the
• The board is free to interpret the law as written to the facts of this case.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings held oral argument before the Legislative Ethics Board in the matter of Tara Simmons, docket 401-645, on a respondent-filed motion for summary judgment. Judge T.J. Martin identified the issues as whether Simmons violated the Ethics Act by using her legislative position for the benefit of others and by holding outside employment that conflicted with her official duties, under RCW 42.52.070 and RCW 42.52.020, and, if violations were found, what penalties or sanctions would be appropriate. The judge clarified that board staff had not filed its own summary judgment motion, only a response to Simmons’ motion. Attorney Doug McKinney argued that the complaint and board staff’s allegations were legally insufficient because they did not allege a personal benefit to Simmons, only benefits to her employer, EEC, or to others. He contended that the Ethics Act has historically required a benefit to the legislator herself, that employees do not automatically have a disqualifying interest in their employers, and that the board’s position would create a new bright-line rule and unfairly change the law as applied to Simmons. He also addressed allegations involving a contract provision, a campaign surplus donation to AEG, a subcontract dispute involving AEG and EEC, and text messages with Anthony Powers, arguing none showed a special privilege or conflict of interest for Simmons. Assistant Attorney General Julia Eisenhower, for board staff, argued the motion should be denied because the record sufficiently alleged violations of both statutes. She said Simmons’ involvement in securing funding for EEC, her employment duties involving stakeholder and legislator connections, her donation of campaign surplus funds to AEG to help secure a job for someone she knew, her role in the AEG-EEC subcontract dispute, and her text messages referencing her official capacity all supported the allegations. A board member asked whether the allegations were sufficient to show a special benefit, and Eisenhower responded that the facts were enough at the summary judgment stage. After rebuttal by McKinney, the ALJ closed the hearing and the board went into deliberations; no ruling was announced during the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• Why are we lowering it from four to two, and what is your interpretation of what it means?
• And what is your interpretation of what it means to be observed in the company of a gang member?
• I appreciate your interpretation, but you will not be interpreting how this law is enforced.
• But again, to your point, I am not the one interpreting, but if they are in fact designated...
• How this would be applied and interpreted by a court of law?

Bills: S0500, S0536, S0762, S1582, S1632, S1634, S1742, S1750, S1792

Keywords: security detail, protective detail, candidate protection, election security, statewide office, governor, lieutenant governor, cabinet officer, nominee, officer-elect, FDLE, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, primary election, general election, canvassing commission, political party, minor party, campaign safety, election protection, public safety

Summary: The committee first considered SB 536, which updates Florida’s criminal gang statutes to reflect modern recruitment and communication methods, including social media and encrypted messaging. Senator Martin and supporters said the bill does not criminalize gang membership, but helps law enforcement and prosecutors establish gang-related connections for warrants and sentencing enhancements. Senator Smith raised concerns about the lowered threshold for being observed with gang members and possible unintended impacts on business owners and others; Martin said the language was not intended to cover ordinary business interactions and that a gang tattoo must be one used by the gang. After an amendment aligning the Senate bill with the House version was adopted, the committee reported CS/SB 536 favorably. The committee also favorably reported CS/SB 762, which allows chief judges to assign capital conflict cases across regional counsel offices, with an amendment requiring judges to consider judicial economy and geographic proximity. Testimony from regional counsel emphasized projected long-term savings, estimated at about $150 million over 10 years. The committee then approved CS/SB 1742, creating a new indecent exposure offense involving sexual conduct directed at minors, and CS/SB 1750, which increases penalties for serious sex crimes and child sexual abuse material offenses; both bills were amended before passage, with law enforcement groups appearing in support. The committee next took up SB 1582, which creates statewide data sharing for secondhand dealer and pawnbroker transactions without creating a new state-run database, while preserving confidentiality protections and law enforcement access. An amendment was adopted, and pawnbroker and recycling stakeholders testified in support. The linked public records bill, SB 1792, creating an exemption for those transaction records while allowing certain information to be released to alleged owners, was also reported favorably. The committee then approved CS/SB 500, which provides FDLE protective security details to major party nominees for governor, lieutenant governor, and cabinet offices after primary certification and until the general election is resolved; a technical amendment was adopted, and the bill was described as mirroring federal candidate protection practices. The longest and most contentious discussion was on CS/SB 1632, which would bar Florida courts from enforcing foreign or religious law in a way that overrides the U.S. or Florida constitutions and would create a process for designating foreign or domestic terrorist organizations, with related consequences for schools, funding, and student conduct. Senator Grall said the bill is intended to protect constitutional principles and target violent, criminal conduct rather than protected speech or religious practice, and she explained that designations would follow a public process with judicial review. Senators Smith and Polsky pressed repeatedly on First Amendment, due process, vagueness, and academic-speech concerns, asking how “promotion” would be defined and whether students, attorneys, or advocacy groups could be swept in; Grall said she was open to clarifying language but maintained the bill is aimed at furthering illegal acts, not mere opinion. Numerous speakers opposed the bill, warning it could be used to target Muslim students, religious communities, advocacy groups, and political dissent, while a few supporters argued it was needed for public safety. The transcript ends during public testimony on SB 1632, with no final committee vote shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Why are we lowering it from four to two, and what is your interpretation of what it means?
• So you're providing your interpretation of what constitutes... ...all so you're providing your interpretation
• I appreciate your interpretation, but you will not be interpreting how this law is enforced.
• But again, to your point, I am not the one interpreting, but if they are in fact does.
• by a court of law. how this would be applied and interpreted by a court of law?

Summary: The committee first considered CS/SB 536, which updates Florida’s criminal gang statutes to reflect modern gang recruitment and communication methods, including social media and encrypted messaging. Senator Martin said the bill does not criminalize gang membership, but clarifies definitions used for gang-related enhancements and law enforcement investigations. Members raised concerns about the meaning of “observed in the company” of gang members and possible impacts on businesses and bikers; Martin said the language was not intended to reach ordinary business customers and that the bill still requires other criteria. The committee adopted the amendment and reported the bill favorably after debate, with some members supporting it and others warning it was still too broad. The committee also approved CS/SB 762, allowing cross-jurisdictional assignment of conflict capital cases with cost and reporting requirements, after an amendment emphasizing judicial economy and geographic proximity; the bill was described as a cost-saving measure and was reported favorably. CS/SB 1742, creating a new offense for indecent exposure or sexual acts directed at minors under 16, was amended to align with the House version and to cover observing a child for sexual gratification, then reported favorably. CS/SB 1750, increasing penalties and mandatory minimums for serious sex crimes and child sexual abuse material offenses, was amended to restore some current-law provisions and limit reclassification to offenders who were 18 or older at the time of the offense, then reported favorably. The committee also approved CS/SB 1582 on statewide data sharing for secondhand dealer and pawnbroker transactions, along with its companion public-records bill SB 1792, both described as theft-prevention and law-enforcement tools with confidentiality protections and stakeholder support. CS/SB 500, providing FDLE protective security for major-party nominees for statewide constitutional offices, was also reported favorably after a technical amendment. The longest and most contentious discussion was on CS/SB 1632, which would create a process for Florida to designate foreign and domestic terrorist organizations, restrict courts from enforcing foreign or religious law when it conflicts with state or federal law, and bar public funds from supporting designated organizations. Senator Graal said the bill targets conduct, not belief, and creates due-process protections through written findings, public notice, cabinet action, and judicial review. Senator Smith and Senator Polsky repeatedly questioned whether the bill’s use of terms like “promotion” could chill protected speech, academic debate, protest activity, or legal representation, and whether the designation process could be used politically or against religious and advocacy groups. Graal said promotion was meant to cover support for illegal acts, not mere disagreement or academic speech, and said she was open to clarifying language. Numerous speakers opposed the bill, arguing it was vague, unconstitutional, and likely to be used against Muslim communities, students, nonprofits, and dissenting political speech; a few supporters argued it was needed for public safety and to prevent state support for terrorism. The committee did not take a final vote on CS/SB 1632 in the portion provided, and the transcript ends during public testimony on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Like I said, no one else seemed to interpret it that way.
• Like I said, no one else seemed to interpret it that way.
• And uh but I never expected to get the interpretation that we got from last year's bill.
• And uh but I never expected to get the interpretation that we got from last year's bill.
• that we got from last interpretation that we got from last year's<00:22:25.200> bill.

Bills: HB0108, HB0039, HB0091, HB0070

Keywords: audit, transparency, government reporting, accountability, public access, firearm rights, restoration of rights, criminal justice, felony convictions, Wyoming law, artificial intelligence, social scoring, biometric data, privacy rights, government regulation, foreign censorship, digital innovation, constitutional rights, Wyoming GRANITE Act, extraterritorial laws

Transcript Highlights:

• I believe that the league indicated that you're going to give us a response of your interpretation of
• I do know that there have been discrepancies in terms of interpretation. Thank you, Ms. Carrard.
• That draft ruling is based on their interpretation of existing law.
• That draft ruling is based on their interpretation of existing law.
• A political process overruled a legal process of interpreting existing law.

Bills: HB2143, HB2273, HB2290, HB2373, HB2784, HB2794, HB4037

Keywords: public safety, retirement system, investments, trust fund, board of trustees, financial report, income tax rebate, Pinal County, taxpayer eligibility, state revenue, financial assistance, transaction privilege tax, business location, tangible personal property, shared vehicle, sourcing, income tax, veterans, donations, tax refunds

Summary: The House Ways and Means Committee first set aside House Bill 2794 at the sponsor’s request and then took up House Bill 2290, which would clarify Arizona transaction privilege tax sourcing rules for tangible personal property by specifying that an order is received at a seller’s business location and that server location does not control sourcing. The sponsor said the bill codifies existing, historic treatment and would provide certainty for taxpayers, while the League of Arizona Cities and Towns opposed it, arguing it would be a major departure from current practice, could shift revenue away from rural communities, and could create multiple tax rates for a single transaction. The Department of Revenue said it was neutral, acknowledged ongoing ambiguity and administrative complexity, and explained that a 2023 draft ruling had been based on a legal analysis but was never finalized. Several business and association witnesses supported the bill as necessary to prevent inconsistent audits and to preserve origin-based sourcing for in-state sellers. After extended debate, the committee passed HB 2290 on a 5-3 vote, with one member absent. The committee then heard House Bill 2373, which would add a space on the individual income tax return for taxpayers to voluntarily direct part of a refund to the Veterans Donations Fund or a veterans service organization fund. The sponsor and a representative of veterans advocacy groups described it as a simple, voluntary way to support veterans organizations and local projects. No opposition was raised, and the bill was approved unanimously by the members present, 8-0, with one absent. Finally, the committee considered House Bill 2143, a technical change to Public Safety Personnel Retirement System law that would limit the 5% ownership cap to publicly traded corporations. PSPRS representatives said the change would reduce compliance costs and avoid unnecessary workarounds while maintaining existing investment safeguards and diversification rules. Members discussed that ASRS does not have the same cap and that PSPRS already has broader limits on concentration risk. The bill was presented as an administrative cleanup measure, and discussion focused on clarifying that it would not increase investment risk.

Transcript Highlights:

• H.J.R. 3 will strengthen the development, interpretation, and application of existing environmental laws
• As interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, U.S. citizens have no right under the U.S.
• protections and regulations with regards to the environment, they would be interpreting and applying
• So it will inform the interpretation, the application, and the enforcement of existing protections.
• But moving forward, it would be about the interpretation of the regulation and legislation as written

Transcript Highlights:

• 00:12:44.839> from<00:12:45.040> a<00:12:45.120> recent<00:12:45.680> interpretation
• <00:12:46.520> of Senator Williams: Uh, this is from a recent interpretation of statute.
• As a result, a recent interpretation tied posting to the calendar year, which means that land posted
• As a result, a recent interpretation tied posting to the calendar year, which means that land posted
• It replaces an unclear calendar-year interpretation, and it reduces unnecessary burden on landowners.

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• interpretation to be looked at by the courts.
• The legal interpretation without the agency's first argument.
• interpretation is the first interpretation interpretation interpretation to<00:12:58.040> be<
• That the<00:13:07.680> legal<00:13:08.000> interpretation<00:13:08.880> without<
• 00:13:09.240> the, the legal interpretation without the, the legal interpretation without the,

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I understand the importance of fair compensation for employees; however, the current interpretation of
• All legislation should be clearly defined, leaving no room for shifting interpretations that disrupt
• All legislation should be clearly defined, leaving no room for shifting interpretations that disrupt
• All legislation should be clearly defined, leaving no room for shifting interpretations that disrupt
• of the regulation their interpretation of the regulation so<00:24:46.080> that's<00:24:46.360

Keywords: 1191, senate, all