House Technology and Infrastructure Innovation Committee, March 11, 2026

Transcript

213 turns. Select a time to play that moment of the video.

1. 0:12:55

   Hey, good morning ev- uh, everyone. Uh, a big thank you to the members of the committee for getting here. Uh, I believe we are close to quorum. One, two, three, four, five- You have eight. Good. We have eight, so we have quorum. All right. So, hey, for run of show, um, we're gonna go in this order: uh, 470, 594, 444. The goal today is to get this done in 60 minutes, so my ask to the committee is have sharp, pithy questions, and my ask of those presenting is to have sharp, pithy answers, and, uh, we would appreciate that.

2. 0:13:30

   Do we have anyone signed up on any of the bills to speak? Doesn't look like it. Nope. Then we look pretty good. Last but not least, for just housekeeping, if you need a per diem day today, if you could do me a favor and see Patrick before you leave so we make sure that we get you signed up. With that stated, um, Senator Albers, you're up. Please give us your bill number, your LC number, and you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be short, pithy, and to the point. This is LC 492658S. This is Senate Bill 470.

3. 0:14:02

   In working in concert with our good friends from the GBI, this is the Emergency and Public Safety Signal Protection Act. What does this do? It makes signal jammers illegal. Many of us have seen this on TV, movies, uh, where you have seen it, everything from a portable handheld jammer that might get everybody in this room to larger ones that can, from football fields away to entire buildings, block all cell signals, Wi-Fi, GPS, satellite, radio communications. This could be devastating to individuals' public safety.

4. 0:14:33

   Uh, we have seen this happen already, where they go into a street, in a cul-de-sac, uh, and they do home invasions. They break into homes. Nobody can communicate with 911. Alarm systems can't call out. Imagine doing it to an entire 911 center or at a large emergency, uh, situation where we take out all radio communications. Uh, so this, uh, does just a couple things. It, it has the definitions of what they are, creates new penalt- penalties throughout the bill, targets those that are also manufacturing, selling, and supplying those, uh, and creates a couple of limitations for those that already have use under federal law through the FCC or any state public safety, local law enforcement agencies that already have authorization to use those, uh, legally.

5. 0:15:20

   Uh, this is a really important issue. It will protect Georgians, first responders, and I wanna thank the GBI, uh, for helping to bring this forward.

6. 0:15:30

   Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the pithiness and to, and to the point. Uh, first question, Chairman Parsons. Thank you, Chairman. Um, and to the gentleman, I see on line 44 through 46 the definition of a signal ma- a signal jammer. Sir. I'm just wondering, my question really is, is there anything else... I mean, in technology there's so many things that different s- devices can do. Is... And I'm sure th- this has been asked of you before, and if the GBI's brought this to you, I'm sure that they've thought this through, but is there anything else?

7. 0:16:01

   I mean, is there anything that somebody could do with some other electronic device, uh, their phone or, uh, uh, any handheld or a laptop, a iPad, anything like that, or anything at all that they might have? That's, that's the only thing that would concern me, that you would do something like that, and it comes, "Well, you know, that, that's, uh, that's a signal jammer, okay, because it did that. Well, you didn't know it would do it, but it will do that." Is there any, do you see any danger of that? Uh, Chairman Parsons, your, your, I know you have a great background in this, too. You bring up a good point. It was the best we thought we could capture at the time, but there are certainly other things such as, it's called EMPs, uh, which can disable all electronic devices, uh, in its entirety.

8. 0:16:40

   Uh, this is really more tailored just to what we think we can capture this time, but I would love to continue to explore this moving forward, and certainly with, again, your, I know your great background and wisdom in that area. That's just a question. I- Yeah. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you, Chairman Parsons. Whitpart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Senator Albers, thank you for the bill. Uh, along the lines of Chairman Parsons' questions, um, how widespread is the possession and manufacturing of these signal jammers? That's a great question, Representative. Uh, they are continuing to expand rapidly right now. Uh, we are seeing that across...

9. 0:17:12

   Hmm, getting a little feedback, sorry. We're seeing that, uh, across, uh, not just the state but certainly across the nation and the world now, as, uh, unfortunately, um, people literally put the, uh, the way to make them up online, whether it be on the full web or the dark web. Uh, and as people have realized they can disrupt more communications, whether it be an active individual, um, um, on a, on, on an individual or a total act of terrorism, uh, we're seeing them grow exponentially right now. Thank you. Thank you, Whitpart.

10. 0:17:42

    Chairman Thomas. Uh, thank you, and thank you for bringing the bill. I, I have, m- probably one of my biggest, uh, concerns that I hope you can address real quickly is the, the FCC. I mean, the FCC regulates RF signals. Um, and my concern, is th- this bill in- basically a congruent state-level set of legislation that is in alignment with FCC regulation, or if, if, have you ve- made sure that we've vetted that properly? Yeah. G- great question, uh, Chairman Thomas. If you look on lines 90 of the bill, it specifically makes the call-out for the FCC and the other federal agencies, uh, because they do allow those, uh, in federal prison systems.

11. 0:18:20

    Although, for some reason, they still do not allow us to do that in our state prison system, and we're continuing to work with, uh, our friends in Washington, DC, to get that done. And, uh, I failed to mention, too, that the Emergency Management Association of Georgia has also endorsed this bill, along obviously with the authors from the GBI. Thank you, Chairman Thomas. Do you have follow-up? N- n- that's all I have, Chairman. Okay. Thank you. Representative Cox. Thank you for bringing the bill. Um, question. Um, which I support this bill.

12. 0:18:51

    I'm just, my thought is if-

13. 0:18:53

    If we're concerned at homes where we live and with drones coming the way that we see that they're over people's homes and surveillance that happens, part of me wonders if this could also have some unintended consequences that protect homeowners from securing their homes as well. Your thoughts on, I, I don't wanna do something that ultimately keeps us from also protecting our, our privacy as well.

14. 0:19:24

    Uh, absolutely. And I know some people like me are, are concerned about that. And, uh, you know, if one gets too close to my house, uh, might have a 12-gauge involved in, uh- Right ... addressing that drone issue. But, uh, in the bill- So you're saying analog to solve a technical issue? You know what? It, it's worked in the past and it could work in the future. Sure. Uh, but it does talk about, uh, uh, if you look at the bill, uh, when you begin on lines 41 and continue down, uh, of stuff that's actually trying to, um, disrupt publicly available information. If they are in and over your house and unprotected, and they're not in protected space, that gets to the point where the threshold of legal or illegal.

15. 0:19:59

    If it's sitting at outside the window of your house, then yeah, you can certainly take that out. But if you're going up 250 feet, then that's where the, the issue becomes a challenge, 'cause you can't disrupt, uh, commercial airspace. Correct, which is a concern. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Cox. Representative Holcomb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I have a few questions that are mostly on the criminalization of the activity. Um, and, and I'll start by saying that I'm supportive of what you're trying to do, but I wanna unpack the, the felonies that are proposed.

16. 0:20:33

    As I read it on lines 54 to 56, that makes unlawful the possession of a signal jammer with the intent to prevent, disrupt, delay, degrade, or otherwise interfere. And then the first felony is found in 16 to- 60 to 63, which appears to just be a strict liability type of penalty where if you have it, then you would be, um, guilty of a felony. But then on line 67, the second version, intent language is added, which there's intent language on line 55 already.

17. 0:21:13

    What is the distinction between C1 and C2? So the felony starting at line 60 and then the felony starting at line 64. I'm gonna ask, uh, Philip, if that's okay with the GBI to come join us to make sure that, uh, not being an attorney, I don't speak out of turn. So you're phoning a friend. I absolutely am. Uh, an analog line, though. No worries. Can you just do us a favor and just introduce yourself? Certainly. Thank you. Good morning. My name's Philip Curtis. I'm an attorney with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. Uh, Chairman, thank you for, uh, hearing from me today.

18. 0:21:43

    Thank you, committee, for, um, hearing this bill. Um, to answer the question, if I may, so it, it, there's two different criminal statutes within the bill. One is interference, and then one is interference with a public safety entity. Um, so it is an aggravated offense if the interference is aimed at a public safety agency, a public safety entering point, or any component of, um, critical infrastructure. Okay. There's two offenses. I gotcha. And then for line 75, which has the word possess again, um, how is that different?

19. 0:22:21

    Uh, I understand that it includes manufacture, sell, offer for sale, distribute, but it also has possess. So would one be guilty of both the initial felonies and that one? So globally, the bill has three separate and distinct crimes. The first crime and lowest level of severity is what you're asking about right now, which is the possess, manufacture, sell, offer sell, or distribution of a signal jammer. The second crime is possession use with interference, and then the third crime is possession use, um, interference with a public safety entity, if you will.

20. 0:23:02

    Okay. Thank you. And then my final questions are, and, and I don't know the answer to this, is on line 91, it states that there's an exception, and it's when authorized under federal law or that has been approved by the FCC to regulate. I understand the regulation part of signal jammers. That makes sense. But are there any instances where this is authorized by federal law? For federal operation, yes. Otherwise, no.

21. 0:23:32

    Otherwise, no. Currently. Now, that is a, a moving target, as Senator Albers just referred to a second, but currently to answer your question, no, sir. Okay. And then the, the last question is, um, at the end of the bill, um, lines 96 to 98, or any other person or entity that is legally authorized to possess, use, operate, manufacture, sell, um, any examples of that other than government use? Same sort of question. Sa- same response. It, this is a evolving area.

22. 0:24:04

    We wanted to have that carve-out should there be federal law, federal, federal regulations that authorize. So we wanted to have that in there. But currently to answer as we sit here right now, it's no, sir. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Holcomb. Representative Cox. Yeah, thanks. It's taking me a minute to get through this. Um,

23. 0:24:25

    go to line 44, uh, signal jammer. Um, my question would be, would you have any support if we added something in here that does not include, uh, passive shielding like Faraday enclosures or similar use solely for personal privacy within a private residence, such that a property owner, and I don't know where this language would fall, Chairman, where a property owner, um-

24. 0:25:00

    Can use these type of, uh, technologies but not interfering with public safety. I don't believe they would be illegal under this bill, but I'm gonna turn to Philip and ask him for his analysis. That, that's such a narrow subset. Um, I, I don't believe ... I, well, I agree, I guess, is the best way to say that with Senator Albers, that I don't believe in the way that you're describing it, that it would be created unlawful under this bill as it's been defined.

25. 0:25:30

    So the, there's a lot of effort and work that went into the definition of signal jammers, and we borrowed from federal law and other states that are also criminalizing signal jammers at the state level. So, um, what we did is we looked at, uh, uh, federal laws and state laws and t- tried to create the best definition, and, and I think we did, um, in addressing the criminal threat of signal jammers. Sure. In line 44, um, it says passive device. I just wanna make sure that as a homeowner, sometimes you want to protect from people getting into your Wi-Fi and, uh, I mean, these different enclosures, Faraday enclosures, this is for protection, which we talked about with the K through 12 with cell phones, using those.

26. 0:26:16

    Um, so I, I'm just concerned that we're leaving, uh, this open and that it could have some unintended consequences. But I ... Anyway, Chairman, that's what I'm concerned about. Thank you. I guess re- representative, if we were ... I mean, we'll look at the will, the will of the committee, but do you think a day or two would help be able to refine your thoughts and then be able to get that a little bit more refined as opposed so we could have the bill sit until the next meeting and then you have an opportunity to get with Senator Albers?

27. 0:26:51

    Sure. Oh, sorry. Hold on. Yeah. It ... Sure. I don't wanna slow the bill down 'cause I think it's incredibly important. I also ... I, I would like for us to at least be able to process through that. I'd like some feedback from the rest of the committee if this is something as well, but I, I think it would be necessary. Okay. Mr. Chairman, could I offer a, a comment to that? And, and great respect- Sure ... to, uh, Representative Cox. Um, this is really consistent with all the other states that are doing this. We spent a lot of time, and it is agency legislation, which we, we wanna keep moving in its importance.

28. 0:27:25

    Um, if we found something, uh, between then, we could certainly, uh, do an amendment on the floor. Uh, and I'd be happy to do that. But if possible, I'd love to keep it moving because I don't think ... I think it's, I think it's in a good place where it's at. Just as a reminder, Senator, um, the upper chamber doesn't do amendments on the floor like a lower chamber, so, um- I understand ... I think it's important just to note that we try and get it just right coming out of rule. So the, the, the senator's comments are obviously taken with, with the intent with which they're, which they, they were given, so thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Cox.

29. 0:27:56

    Representative Tran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator. I think the intent of your bill is very important. My concern is where we're headed technologically as a society, where event venues are looking at ways to signal block because they don't want concerts to be recorded and live-streamed. Um, going to, say, Apple's headquarters, there are areas in which you will have a dead signal, uh, similar to the Faraday cages.

30. 0:28:26

    And so between home use, events, corporations who are trying to protect intellectual property and their own artistic performances, I am concerned that the passive device will be infringing on that. Thank you. I, I appreciate that. I'm, I'm not sure that we read that the same way. Um, this is when you're intentionally doing something to disrupt or create chaos and harm. This is not for someone who might have a clean room because they are having a merger or acquisition and they make sure communications go in.

31. 0:29:00

    So I appreciate your comments, but I think those are, those are apples and oranges.

32. 0:29:06

    Any follow-up, Rep- Representative Tran? No, Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Following up on Representative Tran's po- point, um, in appreciating that that is not the intent is to ... Do you want me to wait? No, keep going. Yeah. Okay. Um, uh, recognizing that it's not your intent to loop in the situation discussed over here, I'm concerned about line 80 where it says directly or indirectly, um, and wondered if perhaps those words should be removed to make sure that we're not looping in folks that we don't intend to.

33. 0:29:48

    Mr. Chairman, again, I'm gonna ask Philip to, uh, help weigh in if that's okay. At any time. All right. You can phone a friend. Yes. So certainly, the, the, the language that you see in the bill, again, is after a thorough review of both federal and other state laws criminalizing signal jammers at the state level. So the language that you see there has been incorporated in such a way to be consistent with what other states are doing and as to not infringe on federal law. I appreciate that, but how would you, how would you explain to this committee that the situation that Representative Tran mentioned, which the sponsor says is not his intent to cover by this, would not be covered if you leave the words directly or indirectly in line 80?

34. 0:30:29

    So, like, di- directly pointed at the use of RF jamming, or let's, let's broaden it, signal jamming in the context of, for example, uh, there was, like, a stadium venue example used. Currently under federal law, that, that is, that's not allowed. So if, if it were to be allowed under federal law, then this, there's a carve-out within the bill that would allow it. I've seen that carve-out in other sections. I'm not sure it's ... I'm not sure it applies to line 80.

35. 0:31:00

    But I could be wrong. I'm- It, it does. If, if you go to the end of the bill, um, under Section G, there's two broad exemptions. Line 89?

36. 0:31:11

    Okay. And so you're, and I don't know, but the situation that was discussed a moment ago, you're saying that is allowed by federal law, and so because of that, we don't have to worry about line 80?

37. 0:31:23

    Yeah, so, s- a- and I wouldn't say don't worry about it. I would say in the event that federal laws or regulations change such that signal jammers are used in a broader context, that's, that's an evolving point that I, that I know what it is right now, but what it is tomorrow, I cannot tell you. And so the law is drafted currently in such a way that if law does change, specifically federal law does change, that those exemptions are carved out within the bill.

38. 0:31:56

    What's the federal statute that I would go to to find out what the federal law is in this area?

39. 0:32:01

    There, there's lots of them. Um, so I've got-

40. 0:32:03

    Can you go into them?

41. 0:32:05

    Um, so I, I've got them in front of me. Uh, there's, there's a long list of federal law that work in this area, both criminal law and FCC law. Do you, you want me to-

42. 0:32:15

    Yes. I want to make sure that we get the bill right.

43. 0:32:17

    Sure. Sure.

44. 0:32:17

    So I would like to know what you're saying i- it-

45. 0:32:19

    I-

46. 0:32:19

    ... it's consistent with so I can check that it's also got that directly or indirectly language.

47. 0:32:23

    A- absolutely. Well, that, that's as it relates to the criminal... Well, let me provide you the two criminal statutes.

48. 0:32:30

    That'd be great.

49. 0:32:30

    Sure. It's 18 U.S.C. 1362 and 18 U.S.C. 1367A. Now-

50. 0:32:37

    1367A?

51. 0:32:39

    Y- yes, ma'am.

52. 0:32:39

    Okay. Thank you.

53. 0:32:40

    But, but in full disclosure, don't take that as that is the only federal law as it relates to signal jammers, right? There's also regulatory law at which is mostly in Title 47 and Code of Federal Re- Regulations 47 as well. So, uh, don't-

54. 0:32:58

    Well, those would be, have to be based on the law, especially now after Chevron, right? We don't just let them make whatever rules they want. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

55. 0:33:07

    And just remember, we led on Chevron deference, kicking that out five years ago. So thank you, Representative Evans. Um, Senator, I know this is a agency bill, and we want to be respectful, and we are clearly working with the GBI on our drone bill as an example. So we're doing everything we can to move these things along. However, there's enough text messages hitting my phone right now that what I'd like to suggest is this. Um, Tuesday's a committee day. Uh, we put you back on first.

56. 0:33:35

    All right.

57. 0:33:36

    Uh, but between now and Tuesday, um, I'm gonna ask our committee members who have been so kind enough to text me saying, "Can you please hold?" Uh, to get with Senator Albers, have that conversation, go with good ideas, and see if we can just see if either, A, we hold where we're at, or B, we make some refinements. But we understand the urgency of it, and we clearly, our friends at the GBI, we want to make sure that they're taken care of. So if we could do that, I sure would appreciate it, Senator.

58. 0:34:00

    Thank you for your help, and we promise not to jam the rest of your meeting.

59. 0:34:03

    I love it.

60. 0:34:05

    Thank you.

61. 0:34:08

    Senator Bearden.

62. 0:34:14

    If you can, just your bill number and your LC, please.

63. 0:34:19

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. Uh, bill number, Senate Bill 594, LC number 492737. Uh, I want to give a little bit of conte- context to the Senate Bill 594 and why this bill was brought forth. I have a constituent back home who was going through a complima- complicated pregnancy, didn't think the child would make it through birth, so she decided to put the story on social media so she wouldn't have to answer questions all the time.

64. 0:34:49

    The child was, uh, born with complications, and approximately four months later, the child died. Um, a few days after the death of the child, the mother was notified, notified and found out that someone had stolen all her pictures, the baby's pictures, and was saying that baby Landry was still alive and needed money to save the baby, so there was a fraud taking place. For weeks, she tried to work with social media to get this fraud taken down.

65. 0:35:20

    She even had to send in, through some paperwork, the death certificate of the child to show that the child had died. Still could not get it taken down, so she went to our local sheriff's office. With an active investigation on fraud, the police, the sheriff's office could not get this taken down. Um, said this in our judiciary committee, and I'll say it in this committee as well, uh, Savannah Levins from 11Alive got involved, and the media was able to take it down. So my problem is, and I appreciate the work from Ms.

66. 0:35:50

    Levins and 11Alive, but why should it take the media to take a fraudulent post down that was raising money, basically stealing money from other people, when the victim couldn't do it, law enforcement couldn't do it, but the media could? So what we did on this bill, lines 23 creates a new felony crime of digital identity fraud. That's when a pers- person commits when s- using someone else's personal images, videos, or identifying information online to deceive others for financial gain or other unlawful purposes.

67. 0:36:26

    On line 34, that's where we establish c- a clear process for victims to request removal of the fraudulent content. Once the victim, um, submits the request to social media, they will have 72 hours, excluding weekends, to check to see if it's fraudulent or not, see if it's within their guidelines. Within that 72 hours, they just need to get back with the victim. If not, that could be a $5,000 civil violation. On line 43, this is kind of where we get more into the teeth of it.

68. 0:37:00

    Upon receiving an active police report from Georgia law enforcement confirming fraudulent activity, the platform will have 48 hours, excluding weekends, to take it down, to remove the content. Um- If they don't, violations carry a penalty of $50,000 per incident, and the prosecuting attorney or the attorney general is authorized to enforce these civil penalties. And finally, um, we create a right of ac- private right of action so the victim can have a, um, process to go to make sure that hopefully this never happens again.

69. 0:37:40

    With AI evolving like it is, and the, the amount of te- in- information out there on us, if there's frauds going on, we- it's time that we protect our victims, make sure that they have a real voice in taking this fraudulent down, and surely it's time to hold the platforms to a basic standard of responsibility. So that's what 594 is doing, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.

70. 0:38:07

    Thank you, Senator. Chairman Parsons.

71. 0:38:09

    Thank you, Chairman. Uh, Senator, first of all, I think I know exactly what you're trying to do here, and I, I appreciate that. I know of a situation very similar to what you're talking about, and it's, it's, it's awful, it really is. I would, though, uh, and as a legislator who some years ago passed legislation that was in- signed into law, uh, having to do with identity fraud on the internet and things like that, had to go through a, a year or more of that thing after it was challenged in federal court, and then overturned or enjoined by the federal court here in Atlanta.

72. 0:38:42

    I also know how, how aggravating and how expensive and time-consuming and how aggravating that could be. I would just ask you just a couple things, if I may. Do... And I'm sure that you've been asked this before in the Senate, but do you not think in, that this is, could be in conflict with Section 230, the Computer Decency Act, which basically gives the platforms, um

73. 0:39:10

    A shield.

74. 0:39:11

    A shield. That's right, a shield, and then it r- actually puts it on the users, the users of the platform. Is that not a, I mean, I'm just asking, is that not a concern that you might have?

75. 0:39:25

    I, I, I can see where you're coming from on that, but at the same time, um, I think we both agree, it, it concerns both of us. These platforms, there's no... That's a basic responsibility that they have, and it puts a lot of emphasis on the user of it, and the platform should be able to be the ones that take this down. Um, there are some bills that are in conflict with things, as you said, the shield that they have, but, you know, I'm will- willing to go, go with it and see how this progresses.

76. 0:39:59

    Well, thank you. If I may just one more.

77. 0:40:01

    Yes, sir.

78. 0:40:01

    I would just be concerned in particular, I think, about the time frames on, uh, let's see, the 72-hour time frame on s- 34 through 38, and the 48-hour time frame between 43 and 48. And then just one more thing. If we were to pass this in what- whatever language it has, I think there should be a disclosure in there or something in the, at the end of, of the bill that says that nothing in this code section would be construed b- to impose a, a, on an interactive computer, um, you know, something that is in con- conflict with, uh, federal law.

79. 0:40:39

    Okay, and, um, I did have some, um, proposed amendments that came from, uh, TikTok. They sent it to me. But, um, you know, they, a couple of them were pretty good, but a couple of them also good at the bill. So, um, you know, I've been trying to work with some of our platforms as well to make sure that we can work together on this. But, um-

80. 0:40:59

    Thank you.

81. 0:41:00

    Thank you.

82. 0:41:01

    Chairman Parsons, are you done?

83. 0:41:02

    I am. Thank you.

84. 0:41:03

    If you don't mind, Senator, I'm just gonna do a couple follow-ups. Uh, 230 has been the bane of my existence since the election of 2020, uh, when frankly, the platforms, in my opinion, did make a decision to get involved in content management as opposed to letting it be the public square, which it was supposed to be based on 230. That all being stated, I like the intent of the bill, but my concern is the actual, I'll say, effect of the bill. For instance, a out-of-country operator does the bad act.

85. 0:41:37

    Mm-hmm.

86. 0:41:37

    The platform then, even if they do get the notice within 72 hours based on a police report, so again, an incident report, in some, uh, jurisdictions isn't done electronically. It's done by paper, as you probably know. So the transference of that information to the platform probably will not be completely efficient or in a timely manner. They do take it down and literally, hypothetically, one second later it gets put right back up by that out-of-state or out-of-country bad actor. Have you thought through the practical ramifications of both 230, to Chairman Parsons' point, but also the practical ramifications of the platform being able to effectively get the information in a timely manner based on an analog transmission that probably happens in over half the jurisdictions, and then also at the same time being able to handle the additional content that's gonna go right up literally immediately after it gets taken down?

87. 0:42:28

    And you're absolutely right, 'cause once this one was taken down, copycats went up, and, um, again, it took, uh, several events to take it down. Um, yeah, we also thought about there's gonna be things our law enforcement can't touch if it's out of country. But if it happens inside the United States, it's, we're given them the ability to do it. So yes, we thought this bill through. But also, um, as many people know from my service in this body, I'm a very big fan of the, uh, committee process and always look for good ideas coming from the committee-

88. 0:43:00

    Okay

89. 0:43:00

    ... and willing to work with the committee.

90. 0:43:02

    All right. Well, thank you, Senator. I appreciate that. Representative Barnes.

91. 0:43:06

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I appreciate what you're trying to do with this bill. I have concerns that, uh, would it criminalize or penalize someone who's just making a fake page, um, say they're in a relationship and they wanna-

92. 0:43:24

    Spy on their, not spy. Let's not say spy. Going to a jammer for that. I mean, yeah. These, these are situations, uh, say you just want a fake page in line 26, if you're creating a social media platform profile that mimics an individual, so you're creating a page that doesn't have your picture on it, um, is, would that criminalize or penalize someone in that situation? I think when you get down to line 29 to deceive others, cau- cause harm or commit fraud is the key element to go back to that.

93. 0:43:58

    They're trying to deceive someone, but they're not causing harm or committing fraud. Would that- I don't see where a fake page would ... If you're not trying to deceive someone, cause harm, solicit money, steal money from them by doing this, um, I mean, technically I got a fake page on social media myself, so, uh- To deceive? Not to deceive. That way I can check on people. That line.

94. 0:44:28

    No, but we don't put our names on, uh, like, X. You may not have your real name on there for a reason, so that's not a fake page. Um, but what we're talking about, that may be considered a fake page because you're not using your real name. Yeah. Like, no one uses their real name on most stuff that they put out there, unless it's their Facebook or something like that to keep in touch with family and friends, or maybe Instagram. This is getting into trying to defraud people, and this is where I believe lines 26 through 29 is very important on that.

95. 0:45:04

    Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Representative Barnes. Chairman Gullett. Thank you. Um, I wanna thank you for the bill. I think, uh, maybe I have concerns for 232, but I also have more concerns with us just saying we can't do anything in situations like this. Um, as a legislative body, like, it's, uh ... Yeah, I mean, how do you tell your s- "Sorry, you know, I can't help you here," um, when I think that we can help, and that's someone else's job, I think, later to figure out, um, if we've gone through all of our exercises and, and believe it's to be right, it, you know, it's right and someone else's, the courts to figure out if we crossed the line.

96. 0:45:43

    But I don't know that we have to, uh, dance around not solving, uh, these, these fraudulent problems, worry about the court case coming in the future. So- Yeah ... um, I thank you for the bill. I just wanted to make those comments. I appreciate, and you're absolutely correct. When we have constituents across the state that needs help, it, I believe it's our job. We're their lobbyists here, and, uh, we need to do everything we can to make sure that they're protected. And if someone wants to challenge that in court, they, they have every right. And if the courts want to make a decision upon it or bill, which they do a lot of times, then that's in their purview.

97. 0:46:16

    But it's our, our job to make sure that we pass laws to protect our citizens. Thanks. Thank you, Chairman Gullett. Representative Tran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator, for this bill. I'm also hung up on to deceive others, 'cause it's, there's nothing else after that to put it in con- context. And while I think if we forced everyone to remove their anonymity from social media, social media might be a better place- 100% ...

98. 0:46:48

    um, you know, we can't, we can't do that. And so I, I'm really struggling with the to deceive others, because a lot of times people create a fake profile so that they can enter a group. So they're using deception essentially to go into a private group on Facebook for whatever reason, um, whether it's to spy on another opponent's political campaign or spy on another company's latest product that they're talking about on a private group.

99. 0:47:23

    And so I'd like more context to, um, on line 29 in that to deceive others. And I think when you read 23 through 30 or 32 completely, it gives you there. It's just not to deceive others. It's what they're doing, they're using the individual's name, their image. They're taking your image and putting it on, on there saying it's them when it's not them. It's actually you. Um, we've seen this on, on X before. Who is this person?

100. 0:47:54

     I'll take a picture, Grok. Who's this person? They can find that person. I said AI is absolutely amazing to what they can do with facial recognition. Um, but it's using that type of information, the social media platform profile information of another person, that's where we're talking about the deceiving of. They're, they're trying to be you and they're not you. So I, you know, I think we're getting hung up a little bit on to deceive others, which is true. But in the context of everything in the bill, we're talking about when they're trying to be someone that they're not and trying to defraud people from being someone else that they're not.

101. 0:48:32

     Thank you, Senator. That's it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Representative Tran. Representative Cox.

102. 0:48:39

     Hearing the story disgusts me on what actually happened, and there's so many stories similar to that. Um, and the efforts to try to protect individuals from some of this deception is much needed. Um, my question would be based off Chairman Parsons and Chairman Jones' comments, um, digital identity fraud in line 21, I'm wondering if that's specific, if maybe we can create a definition that covers Section 230, and even, uh, Chairman Jones, your comments about, um-

103. 0:49:25

     Bad actors from overseas. 'Cause we're not gonna catch those bad actors. We've had this conversation every time we're in a meeting. We can't catch some of these people. And unintended consequences are people that are not, um, they're gonna get hit for some stuff that maybe they shouldn't. And, and I'm wondering if, if we could maybe dial that into an end of, uh... Would you be open for digital identity fraud being more specifically defined that may cover Section 230 and the other things?

104. 0:49:58

     I'll be more willing to work with you on that. Okay. And Chairman Jones, uh, and y'all have more experience with 230 than I do. It, so does that make sense to you, to y'all that maybe we, this definition's too loose? What do y'all think? Um, I concur. I'd even go a step further, Representative Cox. Uh, Chairman Thomas had a great provision within 171 regarding the, effectively the sharing of that information and carving those individuals out. Because let's face it, a lot of people, though they should do some, I'll say, constructive intellectual thought process before they retweet or they repost or something to that effect, Chairman Thomas, I thought, did a really good job carving that out.

105. 0:50:40

     Because the fact that sometimes that is just a downstream implication of social media. So his language does a really good job of, I'll say, the initial or the author of it versus the, I'll say, the re-poster or the re-tweeter of it. So if we could com- combine what you're saying on the definition with Chairman, uh, Thomas' language around that carve-out, I think we go a long way, sir. I think that's a great idea. Thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you, Representative Cox. If you don't mind, I'm going to probably tell my wife you said that, because she never tells me I have a good idea.

106. 0:51:10

     So thank you. All right.

107. 0:51:15

     Oh, Lord, this is recorded. Um. Chairman Parsons. Thank, thank you, Chairman. I would just, uh, comment on this line 21, 22. I don't, to me, I don't believe there's any problem. I mean, it could be better language, I guess. But that is not, I don't think that's in violation of 230. That, a person, it's a different between a, um, what a person does than what the, uh, platform itself does. Yes, if a person does something like that, then I can, I completely concur.

108. 0:51:45

     There should be some kind of action could be taken against them. It's when you put in the, the actual platform, I think, I can't remember what it's called down here, the, the, uh, I don't know, the company, whatever. Person's one thing. I have, I have no problem with that 21 and 22, except, I mean, if you think it need to be tightened up or whatever, that'd be one thing. But the person is, you know, one thing, the platform is another, is another issue. Chairman Parsons, thank you. I think the two of them can, I think, both be looked at. To your point, the social media platform is subject to 230 based on the town, the town hall, the town square type principle, to your point.

109. 0:52:20

     And then I think we got the person that we need to be talking about in terms of the original author versus the re-poster. I think I agree with you. Okay. Oh, that's, that's the second one I need to show my wife. All right. Chairman Thomas? Uh, thank, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for bringing this bill. Uh, you're addressing an issue that I've been working on for four years, and I've sent a lot of bills over to the Senate, and I have not got one of them to the governor's desk. Um, the, one of the issues that I have is, you in, I believe you inadvertently bring elections into this bill, and I don't think you, you meant to.

110. 0:52:51

     But, um, if, what, what's to stop... Say, for example, you have a individual who uses artificial intelligence, creates a new account in, uh, on Facebook or wherever, and they use that to create parodies of a, another s- you know, elected official. Um, when you get into that, that, you start getting into that, you start getting into First Amendment rights issues. And, and I don't see that there's any carve-outs or any ways to address those particular issues. The, the bill that we passed, um, that actually was sub- substituted in SB9 and then disagreed to and sent back to the House, had a lot of provisions to make sure that this was things that were only applying to political organizations, political entities, and this kind of bypasses all of that language and basically says, if you're anybody, uh, you, you wanna do this, then you can just go ahead and, you know, it's free, free game, uh, with a half-million-dollar fine.

111. 0:53:49

     Um, I think that, that gets to be pretty stringent on people that do make that, that mistake. Uh, one of the other things that we did, worked on was, um, ensuring that people that maybe don't always understand the, what they're doing with the technology, it starts off with a misdemeanor, and it scales up instead of just hitting them with a felony right out of the gate. Uh, I know that there was members of the Senate that spoke to me that felt like that was a little excessive on the, uh, just right out of the gate. So I think what we need to do is, 'cause I do think the intent is legitimate, and I, I think that you're really trying to address a problem.

112. 0:54:23

     Like, again, I have that House Bill, HB 171, that, uh, got to rules in the Senate, um, where I try to address some of these a little bit in a little bit of a different manner. Um, I think that a lot of this is complementary, but I also think we have to be a little careful to make sure that we're not inadvertently bringing people into the fold that, um, probably should be treated a little different. So I, I just like to suggest that, and I'd be happy to work with you, Senator Bearden, um, on maybe tightening this language up a little bit so we don't have any unintended consequences, 'cause I think there's several in here right now.

113. 0:54:56

     Okay. All right. Well, Chairman Thomas, thank you. That was the final question. Uh, Senator, you're off the hot seat. Um, I would ask the committee, uh... And you had a lot of questions, Senator. Um, if you can, please work with the senator. Uh, if there is an opportunity to improve, we obviously wanna be able to do that, and let's do it kind of on, I'll say, everyone's time in terms of when we're in, so then that way, when we get to committee again, we can have another fruitful discussion, okay? Senator, thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Um, committee members, um, Senator Kirkpatrick has...

114. 0:55:29

     Oh, here she is. I was about to say she just presented the rules, and she'll be right back

115. 0:55:37

     Senator Kirkpatrick, if you could come up with your bill number and your LC. Uh, in a perfect world, we're done in 14 minutes. Okay. All right. That'd be great.

116. 0:55:48

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Had to be sure I had the right folder, running around today. Um, your committee's heard this bill once, and so I'll just hit the high points, which basically is, uh, this is a prote- patient protection bill, very important to the patients and the physicians in Georgia. And what the bill does is it recognizes that AI is a useful tool in prior authorization of medical procedures, and it certainly allows for AI, but it, uh, states that it cannot be the sole determinant of an adverse determination.

117. 0:56:30

     And that ensures that the bills that we've passed on prior authorization previously defining what a clinical peer is, that, uh, they're involved in reviewing all the information before a denial is issued. I haven't heard any opposition to the bill from the standpoint of, um, the substance. We talked a little bit about the definitions last time, and, uh, this is a... I use the NIST definitions, which is a national definition, but really, for me, the meat of the bill is on line, um, 20- 24 through 26.

118. 0:57:10

     So the definitions, I'll defer to the committee opinion on that, but, um, I hope for favorable consideration. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Uh, Chairman Parsons. Th- thank you, Chairman. I apologize for asking a question on every g- every bill. Please. Uh, this is a simple, uh, simple question though. I mean, I think the bill, the bill is great. I mean, I appreciate you having it. I would just ask this. In light of the fact that the President of the United States has issued an executive order threatening to take away funding for broadband that comes from the federal government to the states, if any local, if any state legislation is passed regarding, uh, artificial intelligence, do you believe that this is an issue there?

119. 0:57:51

     Because I do not want to use that, lose that funding for, uh, for, uh, broadband that I've worked so hard for the last five, six, seven, eight years to get. Thank you. Thank you very much for the question, and you'll be happy to know that I have run this up the chain with the current administration, and they don't have an issue with the bill. It's very narrow, and it does not impact the thing that they're most concerned about, which is development. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Parsons. Chairman Thomas? Hey, K- Uh, I'm sorry. Hey, Senator Kirkpatrick.

120. 0:58:22

     I, I appreciate that you're bringing this back. Um, and I, I, I apologize because I was supposed to get with you, and I did not have an opportunity, but I do have one quick question. Um, on line 18, um, you, you write, you use the term, I'm sorry, you use the term agents. Um, I, I have to tell you that the word agent, when you start getting into artificial intelligence realm, can be, th- that, that word can be a little confusing because AIs create agents, and the agents...

121. 0:58:56

     So is it the private review agent the AI, or is the private review agent the human being? The private review agents are the entities that are already defined in our law that are the utilization review companies that work with the insurance companies to approve or deny care. So it's really something that's preexisting in our law that we've already dealt with on prior authorization. It really doesn't have anything to do with AI. So is it private review agents defined somewhere? And it's just so that way- Yes ... there's no confusion somewhere else.

122. 0:59:28

     Yes, we covered that in Senate Bill 80 several years ago. Okay. Uh, would you be opposed if we referenced, just made sure that was a tight reference and say private review agents as defined in whate- whatever- In current code. It, yeah, whatever the current code is, which I'd defer to, uh- That would be, uh, title, Chapter 46, Title 33. Okay. Yeah, and that, and that, like I said, I just want to tighten that up because, uh, as AI evolves, this agentic framework thing is gonna become more and more prevalent.

123. 0:59:59

     So I just want to make sure it's clear that, because I know your idea here is to make sure a human is on the loop making these decisions. So if you misread that, you could kind of read it to say that it's, uh, AI is the one that gets to make the decision, an agent. So I just want to make sure that's very, very tightly scripted. Um, you know, otherwise, I, uh, that, that was really the only language question I had, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. You have, um, Representative Thomas, it does refer to that chapter and title in the code if you look at line nine.

124. 1:00:34

     So that should take care of it. Okay. Yeah, actually, I think that does address my question. Um, I, I'll, I'll dig into it a little, but yeah. Thank you. That wasn't my number one worry. Thank you, Chairman Thomas. Representative Beckles? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, thank you for bringing this bill. I have one, um, quick question that I'm gonna preface with, uh, my background. Currently, I work for a hospital chain, and I do cybersecurity. We have just formed a department that's gonna be focusing in on AI.

125. 1:01:06

     Totally, that's all we're gonna be focusing in on. And one of the questions that I have regarding this bill, will the patients be informed that AI has been used in the determination of their, um,

126. 1:01:21

     if, if AI will be used to determine the outcome of their request?

127. 1:01:28

     Um, that should be covered when you're a patient and you show up at a doctor's office, you're signing your benefits so that they handle getting approval for whatever procedures the doctor's recommending. So there is a disclosure, um, just in the general intake information that you fill out when you see a doctor. But specifically, it's not in the bill. Okay. Thank you.

128. 1:01:59

     Representative Beckles, are you finished?

129. 1:02:01

     Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I am.

130. 1:02:03

     Yes. Okay. Thank you. Senator, um, let me play out a scenario for you regarding 24 to 26. Um, to my colleague's comments, I like the intent, but here's what's running through my dork brain.

131. 1:02:23

     I'm sure these insurance companies are using machine language at the very minimum, and that's kind of the, the prehistoric version of AI, to run through a series of different algorithms to determine whether or not something is, quote, "Approved or not approved." And one of the things I think about after the mental health bill, learning so much about step therapy, you know, something as simple as, you know, if the physician jumped to step five instead of starting with step one, two, and three, and the machine language just kind of automatically says no to that. Um, I guess my question is the following: Do we put more power into every Georgian's hands by actually flipping 24 to 26?

132. 1:03:00

     Let me tell you what I mean by that. Respectfully to the companies that this is effectively directed at, I could have machine language running through all of this. A human being or using the clinical peer could, for all intents and purposes, review it for a microsecond, check it, ex- maybe put a signature on, DocuSign it, whatever they're going to do, without truly making that review and just letting it just pass through 100% of the time. On the other hand, if we were to give Georgians expedited review of the denial, whether or not it was done vis-a-vis AI or a human or a combination thereof, does that expedited review put more power into the Georgians' hands?

133. 1:03:43

     Because right now, respectfully, I could,

134. 1:03:48

     I could design a system that met the actual words of this system, of this, of 24 to 26, and yet at the same time truly not have a person guardrailing that. On the other hand, by giving them expedited review and an expedited, I'll say, you know, audit, does that give the Georgian more power knowing that a truly, a clinical review peer is involved in being able to a sense fight against what the decision was, in this case of either AI, a human being, or a combination thereof?

135. 1:04:17

     Um, Mr. Chair, I don't think that that would get you where you wanna go, and the reason is that currently what happens is if there's going to be a denial, there's a peer-to-peer conversation that happens between the insurance company and the person who's recommending the care, the physician or dentist or hospital or whoever it is. And so those conversations typically, um, happen. I did a million of them when I was practicing, and, uh, that's a review that we now require in our state law, has to be someone of the same or similar specialty so that they're gonna understand what the issue is.

136. 1:05:00

     The problem with, um, that I think could happen with what you're saying is if that would've, expedited review would happen after a denial.

137. 1:05:10

     Right.

138. 1:05:10

     And that's not what we're looking for. We're not looking for denials to happen that have to then be appealed. We're looking for that review to happen before the denial.

139. 1:05:21

     Again, what I'm saying is, is this could be navigated in such a way that I could create the review and still basically use machine language to just keep it flowing the exact same way. But I, I, we can agree to disagree in terms of flipping this around, in terms of being more powerful, in terms of consumer protection for Georgians. Um, we have two additional questions. I- Representative Evans, do you have your light on? Representative Evans, you're, you're recognized.

140. 1:05:45

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator. I was over where you were and just came back, so I apologize if this has been covered. I'm gonna tell you my concern and then the questions I have so you can kind of understand where I'm, where I might be going with these things. I'm unfamiliar with insurance review other than a frustrated consumer from time to time. Um, but my concern is that y- you have these AI tools that go to a denial, and I'm not sure, and this is where my questions are, I'm not sure that human review is, or I just don't know if it's in the law, if it's required, because I don't know what in accordance with the standards set forth in this chapter and rules and regulations on line 20 to 21, I don't know what a private review agent is.

141. 1:06:32

     I don't know what utilization review entity is. So maybe those things take care of the you have to have a human review, and that's my main question. Um, but being the concern is that this clinical peer review on line 26, it says it won't supersede that, but is there something in the law that makes the clinical peer review required?

142. 1:06:54

     I, yes, ma'am.

143. 1:06:55

     Okay.

144. 1:06:56

     There, um, as I referred to earlier, Senate Bill 80 that we passed in 2021 or 2022 pretty clearly defines what a clinical peer is and how that fits into the overall process. And so, um, I think that's handled already. Again, normally I'm presenting bills like this to either the Health committee or the Insurance committee who deal with that subject matter every day. So I understand that that may not be as familiar to people who are dealing with technology on a regular basis.

145. 1:07:29

     Okay. So there is, there is a legal requirement that an insurance company puts human eyes on something, and not just a Not just a glance, but a, a, you know, in law we would call it a de novo review. Like, it's not just I'm gonna take what the AI did and kinda glance at it and check for obvious errors. A human has to go back and look at it soup to nuts, so to speak.

146. 1:07:53

     We did define that whole process-

147. 1:07:54

     Okay

148. 1:07:55

     ... of what needs to happen, uh, several years ago, and that's how it's working now. However, what we're understanding now, and many states are doing the same thing, is that we want to allow AI to be part of the process, and we, uh, if there's going to be an approval, that's all good.

149. 1:08:14

     Mm-hmm.

150. 1:08:14

     What we're trying to do is streamline the process for patients by using AI in an appropriate way, and yet knowing that we, the technology is developing every single day and changing. Um, we've seen examples of, um, mistakes based on algorithms and that type of thing.

151. 1:08:34

     Mm.

152. 1:08:34

     And I presented one example of that last time when I was here. And so, um, in my view as a physician, we still need humans in this process for at least the short run until we completely do away with physicians.

153. 1:08:50

     Well, hopefully that won't happen. Um, okay, and I think this is what you're saying. So, and I, I love the idea of AI and a quick review for approvals. That gets everybody in treatment and moving. But in this, and I think this is what you're saying, but if you can just confirm for me, if there is a denial, if there was gonna be a denial based on an AI review, a human pair of eyes has to look at it completely, not just obvious errors of the AI? Yes.

154. 1:09:16

     Like, that's the intent.

155. 1:09:17

     Okay.

156. 1:09:17

     And that's what we spelled out-

157. 1:09:18

     Well-

158. 1:09:18

     ... in Senate Bill 80.

159. 1:09:19

     Yeah. But that's what I... So that's what I-

160. 1:09:21

     That's in the law.

161. 1:09:21

     The intent. I'm, does the law require it?

162. 1:09:25

     It's, it's in the bill that I referred to where we put the guidelines in about what the qualifications have to be, how the peer-to-peer process has to be handled, and so I think that's been adequately covered.

163. 1:09:40

     A- a- and I think this is what you're saying, and I don't, I'm sorry to harp on it, but I just really wanna know yes or no. I, I, I understand we've set forward a process, but does that process mandate that in a denial situation a human would look at the file not just for obvious errors but for a, a thorough review before a denial to a patient?

164. 1:10:02

     Yes.

165. 1:10:03

     Okay. Thank you.

166. 1:10:04

     And at the time that bill was passed, we weren't contemplating the use of AI in prior authorization and how that was gonna fit into the overall process.

167. 1:10:15

     Okay. And I, and I can go and look at that law from Senate Bill 80, but I'm wondering in light of what you just said if we, if we might need to go back and make that clear, that an AI review does not replace a human review.

168. 1:10:29

     That's exactly what I'm trying to do with this bill.

169. 1:10:30

     That's what this... Okay. All right. I'll think about that. Thank you.

170. 1:10:37

     And you wonder why I ask to have so many Judy members on my committee. It's a good thing, but they do, they do perfect the language, and we appreciate the work that they do, so thank you, Representative Evans. Um, Chairman Prince?

171. 1:10:51

     Uh, thank you, Chair. And my, uh, question's more to you. Uh, I just received this new, looks like a definition, def in LC number section three, and I'm just trying to figure out what is that? What's the purpose of this?

172. 1:11:02

     So that is from-

173. 1:11:05

     Some

174. 1:11:05

     Thank you, Chairman Prince. Uh, that's from HB 171, Chairman Thomas' bill. If you recall, going all the way back to the first deepfakes bill, we had Judy join us. Um, we went through, I believe, five or six committee meetings on that bill trying to refine the definition of artificial intelligence. Um, we also had three or four First Amendment attorneys in addition to Judy. So the feeling is, at least from the chair's perspective, we have spent literally hundreds of hours trying to get it right, so we wanted the committee to consider at, when the time is right, Chairman Prince, maybe an amendment to this bill where we flip out the definition to the one that we've worked on for so long just for consistency purposes.

175. 1:11:47

     Thank you.

176. 1:11:48

     Yes, sir.

177. 1:11:53

     I don't see any other questions or any other comments.

178. 1:11:57

     Mr. Chairman.

179. 1:11:57

     Chairman Thomas?

180. 1:11:58

     Um, Representative Evans, I, I actually had the same question that you had, uh, specifically about the term agent. Um, I did ask our attorney to look that up, uh, just to verify, uh, 'cause I trust but verify, right? Um, i- if, if we may, Mr. Chairman, is there any way we can recognize, uh, our attorney just to state what's currently written in code for, um, uh, for the applicable section?

181. 1:12:25

     Yes, absolutely. I'll make 15 live.

182. 1:12:31

     So private review agent is defined in 3346-4, which is the same chapter that this, um, code section in this bill would apply. It states private review agent means any person or entity which performs utilization review for an employer with employees who are treated by a healthcare provider in the state, an insurer, or a claim administrator.

183. 1:13:02

     Representative Evans, did, do you feel like that meets your...

184. 1:13:08

     I think that, uh, based on everything that the senator shared, the definitions of those terms are probably less my concern, my, than s- needing some sentence that either says that this does not supersede whatever process we set up in Senate Bill 80 in the sense of a denial, or it might be cleaner to have some kind of language that would say, um, "In no event shall-" A, and this is just my...

185. 1:13:39

     I'm saying this out loud, it would need to be better language, but essentially something that says you can't send out a denial based on AI. That it has... If there's a denial, it has to get a human look. 'Cause I'm not sure that this does that. All this says is that you can't have a denial solely on the basis of AI, but this language doesn't say for sure that you have to do that other process. And if that other process was developed before we had this, then I'm, I'm, I'm worried how a judge would review it, and I think we would need some language like some notwithstanding or in no event shall this supersede that.

186. 1:14:16

     I, I think there's just something missing, a belt and suspenders kind of thing missing here.

187. 1:14:21

     Okay. Well, uh, uh, I, I wanted to address your, uh, private review agents, 'cause that was one of the first things I picked up on as well.

188. 1:14:28

     Yeah.

189. 1:14:28

     Um, and, uh, uh, so I, I do understand what you're saying. That at the end of the day, the way this is written, you're concerned that, that there's no end of the loop or on the loop decision making if it is kicked back by the AI, that the AI... That there's nothing that definitively says a human needs to be the final reviewer.

190. 1:14:47

     Right.

191. 1:14:48

     Is that... Okay. Tha- thank you.

192. 1:14:50

     Thank you.

193. 1:14:52

     So Representative Evans, I'm sharing the same issue in the sense that the senator said it, I think, perfectly. It's short-term. I think slowly but surely you're gonna see more reasoning coming in. And again, I don't want the machines to take over. I'm not looking for Terminator. But at the same time, as much as I think insurance companies might frustrate all of us, I'd love to hear from them in terms of are there certain, I'll just say, claims that get put in that are so obviously going to be denied? And I can think of, you know, for instance, you know, certain plastic surgeries.

194. 1:15:25

     You know, I know that, that the state health benefits plan does not cover just because I wanna have a certain plastic surgery. It doesn't... It's, it's gonna be denied, and we understand why other than ones that are associated with, I'll just say, other medical issues. So the question becomes is, I'd love to know what's the current process, how do they do it, and then how do you put in, call it human, you know, human logic or human reasoning or human empathy and compassion into it along with what the rules state? So I like... The belts and suspender idea actually intrigues me, and again, I'm not trying to slow the senator's bill down.

195. 1:15:59

     I'm actually just trying to see if we can just get the language perfected, so.

196. 1:16:03

     Absolutely.

197. 1:16:08

     I'll, uh, I'll call for one quick second to get the 10-minute warning.

198. 1:16:13

     Okay.

199. 1:16:13

     Whenever you want to take a motion.

200. 1:16:15

     Well, if... Are we done from the legislative council standpoint?

201. 1:16:20

     Yes.

202. 1:16:20

     Okay. I, I didn't wanna shut you off, and then you, you look at me with that look. Um, Senator Kirkpatrick, we're not trying to make your life difficult, but at the same time we wanna make this right. Um,

203. 1:16:35

     Chairman Thomas has promised and committed to work with you before Tuesday's meeting. If you could work with Chairman Thomas, get this where it, we think it needs to be. Representative Evans, I don't mean to volunteer you. I know that you're busy in your private life and your, in your business, but at the same time, if you would be so kind as to work with Chairman Thomas and the senator, um, I think she has been ultra-patient with us, and I appreciate that patience, Senator. Um, and but at the same time, if we could tighten it up and get it back to the committee, and then when we meet on Tuesday, um, the expectation would be to move you through.

204. 1:17:10

     Again, I don't wanna say that on the behalf of the committee, but that's our goal here, Senator. We're not trying to put, put, put a roadblock on you, okay?

205. 1:17:16

     What time on Tuesday?

206. 1:17:17

     Um, I'm gonna wait. Um, Stacey will... Oh, I apo- Let, let me just answer your question. Stacey's gonna get us a time, and she'll get an agenda out to you guys immediately. But hold on just one second. Rep- Rep- Representative Evans has something to say.

207. 1:17:30

     Oh, I, I just wanted to say I'm absolutely happy to help, and I wanted to clarify with the senator that it was Senate Bill 80 from the '21-'22 session? Okay.

208. 1:17:38

     Yes.

209. 1:17:38

     That's what it looks like. Thank you.

210. 1:17:39

     All right. Thank you. And Senator, again, we apologize, uh, but we just wanna try and get this right. We'll see you on Tuesday, and we're adjourned. Thank you.

211. 1:17:46

     Thank

212. 1:17:53

     you.

213. 1:17:53

     Okay. The committee is adjourned