October 7, 2026 · COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY · 1,728 words · 24 speakers · 150 segments
Designation.
Davidson.
Designation.
Docherty.
Designation.
Inglis.
Designation.
Mazzacco.
Napoleon Nelson.
Designation.
Powell.
Designation.
Procopiak.
Designation.
Rivera.
Rosnack.
Designation.
Takak.
Designation.
Waxman.
Chair Ortizai.
Here.
Dorsey.
Day.
Designation.
Gatos.
Irvin.
Ledbetter.
Designation.
Eric Nelson.
Designation.
Oh, he is?
Reichard.
Designation.
In the hallway, is that a new one?
Rigby.
Stare.
Designation.
Brobish.
Juan.
Designation. You do have a quorum.
Thank you.
I'd like to thank you all for being here early. Alex loves these 9 o'clock meetings, so I'll give him credit. We have three bills and a resolution this morning, and there's a few different amendments. Our first bill is House Bill 2603, the REC bill, which would be mine. There is one amendment to that. Alex, can you read the bill and then the amendment, please?
Yes, House Bill 2603 requires wearable recording devices, including smart glasses, to have a visual indicator that indicates when the device is capturing sound or video. Amendment A04532, offered by Chair Cerisi, narrows the scope by adding a definition for capture and amending the definition of wearable or recording devices. It also prohibits the use of wearable or recording devices for biometric identification, removes some requirements for retailers, and extends the effective date.
Are there any questions on the amendment? Are there any no votes on the amendment? Seeing none, we'll move to the bill itself. Are there any questions on the bill? Do you need the roll call?
Do you have a question? Can you just highlight the purpose? Is this a privacy concern? Can you give some context?
Yeah, so this bothered me when I first saw these glasses come out because, you know, you have the right to do whatever in public, and we all know that. And if you hold up a cell phone, you know someone's recording you. But if I'm wearing these glasses now and I don't have anything to indicate on it, you have no idea you're being recorded. So I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to use them. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to sell them. All we're saying is that you should have the right to know that you're being recorded. So that's what it's about. Do we need to call the roll? Oh, go ahead. Sorry.
If I may also, coming from an education background, it would be great for our teachers to know that kids are not recording with glasses. There are so many things that kids get away with in schools, and making this part of what you can't get away with would be great to have into law. Thanks.
Thank you. Are there any no votes on this bill? So seeing then, the bill will be passed on as amended to the House floor, hopefully to run sooner than later. Moving on to House Bill 2637, and I apologize again. These are three of my bills. And it has two amendments. Alex, please read the bill, and then we'll start with the amendments.
House Bill 2637 creates a temporary three-year prohibition on the manufacture, distribution, and sale of children's toys containing AI chatbots. And on to Amendment A-04533 by Chairman Otitai. Amendment A04533, offered by Chair Ortizai, directs the Joint State Government Commission to study the use of AI in children's toys and its potential effects on children.
Are there any questions on the amendment Again do we need to roll or we good Seeing none are there any negative votes The amendment passes. Moving on to Amendment 04531.
Amendment A04531, offered by Chair Cerise, adds exemptions to the definition of A.I. chatbot, adds a knowledge standard, and extends the effective date.
Any questions on the amendment?
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. For our review, can you go over what those exemptions are, please? Alex.
All right. Sorry about that. Thanks for your patience. The amendment clarifies that AI chatbots definition only applies to technology that can produce adaptive responses and excludes those whose functionality is limited to executing a user command or function of the product, retrieving or playing back stored content, language translation, or speech recognition, text-to-speech, or other accessibility features.
Are there any other questions or comments on the amendment? Are there any no votes on the amendment? Seeing none, we move to the bill itself. Are there any questions on the bill? Go ahead, Chairman T.T.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Definitely support what the underlying bill is trying to do, and thanks for working with us on the amendments. I'm not a huge fan of doing a three-year moratorium, but I know there's still a little bit of work to be done on this bill. But I'm going to support it today. Hopefully we can work on some things, especially now with the study being in there. It was something that we heard from the hearing as well. Maybe we can make it shorter or just kind of work a little bit more on it. But today I'm going to vote on it. I think it's overall a good start. But thank you.
Thank you. And, yes, I look forward to narrowing it and coming up with a bill that we all could agree on and get passed on the floor. Any other comments?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also agree that putting a three-year moratorium on something like this, which affects our children, I find it problematic, but I also believe that we need to move forward on some of the other things in this bill. We do need to address this. Our children are at risk, and three years really is a long time. But I think at this point it's actually far more important that we get this right, and hopefully we'll be able to address this problem with toys in our children's hands in maybe some other ways. But I will be a yes vote, but I think that this is a serious issue that we need to address.
Thank you. Anyone else? All right, well, this one we're going to need to call the roll. Chair Cerisi?
Yes.
Carol?
Yes, by designation.
Curry?
Yes, by designation.
Davidson?
Yes, by designation.
Doherty?
Oh, somebody's online. Doherty's online.
It's Davidson.
He said yes.
Doherty?
He said yes.
Inglis?
Yes, by designation.
Mazzacco?
Mazzacco.
Napoleon Nelson?
No, by designation.
Powell?
Yes, by designation.
Prokopiak?
I could have it.
Yes, by designation.
Rivera?
Resnock Yes by designation TACAC Waxman Chair or T Yes Dorsey
Day?
Yes, by designation.
Gatos?
Irvin?
Ledbetter?
Yes, by designation.
Eric Nelson?
Reichard?
Yes, by designation.
Rigby?
Stair.
Yes, by designation.
For Obish.
Wallen.
The bill passes by a vote of 24 to 2. The bill we've reported out, House Bill 2637 has voted and on its way to the floor. Our next House bill is House Bill 2666 by Representative Waxman.
Alex. House Bill 2666 requires consent for social media platforms to create AI-powered simulations of a user after their death.
Representative Waxman, would you like to add anything?
Thank you, Chairman. Just this is a real thing that we need to be worried about. I would not have thought even a year or two ago that this was something we would have to talk about. But Meta, the company Meta, has patented technology that would use someone's social media history to create an AI simulation of them. That includes generating posts, messages, and other interactions in your style, even if you have passed away. This is a real patent. This is a real thing that they're talking about doing. If people want to do something like this, they want to create something that will interact with people after they've passed away. I think that's up to individual people. But I think that we should have to give our consent if we're going to allow any of these social media companies to create avatars for us and interact like us after we've passed away. So I urge you, yes, vote. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions or comments on the bill?
Chairman? Well, I certainly support the intent of the bill as written. I can't support it today, but certainly we'll be looking forward to filing some amendments to get there and working with a prime sponsor and you on just refining it a little bit further down. There's a couple spots that are a little confusing to me, but that just might be my interpretation. But for today, I'm going to be a no and ask my members to be a no as well. Thank you.
All I have to say is I do like this idea, but if you ever want to make this after I'm gone, it better be better looking and keep my hair. Anyway, with that, let's call the roll. Noah, call the roll, please.
Chair Cerise. Yes.
Carroll.
Yes, by designation.
Curry.
Yes, by designation.
Davidson.
Yes, by designation.
Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Nathan. He was a yes, I didn't see him on that. Doherty?
Yeah.
Inglis?
Yes, by designation.
Mazzacco?
Napoleon Nelson?
Yes, by designation.
Powell?
Yes, by designation.
Prokopiak?
Yes, by designation.
Rivera?
Rosnock?
Yes, by designation.
Takak?
Waxman?
Chair Ortitai
No
Dorsey
Day
No by designation
Gatos
Irvin
Ledbetter
No by designation
Eric Nelson
Reichard
No by designation
Rigby
Stair
No by designation
Robish
Wallen The poll passes by a vote of 15 to 11 Thank you. The bill will report out of committee as amended onto the House floor. Next is House Resolution 637. I'm going to put the good chairman first so you don't have to hear my name again, and then myself.
So, Alex, please read the resolution. House Resolution 637 offered by Chair Cerisi urges the federal government to establish safety guardrails on the development of frontier AI models Okay well I offered by Chairman Ortiz Anyway are there any questions or comments on the resolution
Chairman, any questions or you want to share anything? Will there be any no votes? We need to call the roll or are we good to go? Are we good to go? Seeing none, the resolution is reported out, 637, which we're going to the House floor. I don't think there's any other business unless Alex wants to have another meeting today, or are we good? Okay. All right. With that, I like to call it a meeting. This is adjourned.
Thank you. Thank you.