Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Artificial Intelligence Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate unanimously concurs with House Bill 178 limiting government use of AI after amendment
Summary
The Senate Energy Committee concurred in House Bill 178, which narrows permitted uses of artificial intelligence by state and local government. Lawmakers adopted an amendment removing the term "high risk" to avoid ambiguous interpretation and voted unanimously to concur in the bill as amended.
The Senate Energy Committee on Feb. 18 voted unanimously to concur in House Bill 178 after adopting an amendment that narrows the bill’s language on prohibited artificial intelligence uses.
The bill, introduced in the House by Representative Mitchell and presented to the committee in the Senate, would limit certain uses of AI systems by state and local government. Chair Zolnikoff explained the measure as designed to restrict government uses of AI in ways that go beyond safety and operational efficiency.
Committee members adopted an amendment that removes the phrase “high risk” from the bill’s text. The senator who explained the amendment said the change was intended to avoid leaving “high risk” open to interpretation and that established categories such as missing, endangered or wanted persons provide sufficient authority for law enforcement.
Senator Heyman sought clarity about the scope of the bill, asking whether the proposal would restrict types of AI currently used in state government. Chair Zolnikoff responded that the bill “prohibits it for cognitive behavioral manipulation, classifying people, or for use for malicious purpose or for surveillance of public spaces.”
After brief discussion, the committee approved the amendment by voice vote and then concurred in House Bill 178 as amended. Chair Zolnikoff called a voice vote; members responded in favor and the committee recorded the measure as passing unanimously.
The committee did not record roll-call tallies for either the amendment or the concurrence vote; both were decided by unanimous voice vote. The committee then recessed to await House business.
Votes and formal actions from the committee relate to the committee’s concurrence recommendation only; no committee-level amendments beyond the adopted language were reported to change statutory sections other than the struck term described above.
