Transcript Highlights:

• I'm and some of them are in the back.
• like mystery science theater in the back like mystery science theater in the back row.<00:44:04.079
• <00:45:13.599> eat<00:45:13.920> popcorn back there and literally eat popcorn back
• /c><00:56:08.559> on<00:56:08.799> a<00:56:09.040> long were back in the back row
• on a long were back in the back row on a long session<00:56:10.240> and<00:56:10.480> we

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We are getting more people housed and either back to their place of origin or back to some treatment
• , we'll see you back here.
• So if we can come back to that.
• Lanatra is back on, then we'll get you right back. You're on deck, Gary. Rep., are you here?
• Lanatra is back on, then we'll get you right back. You're on deck, Gary. Rep., are you here?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held its fourth public hearing of the 2025-2026 session on bills dealing with involuntary commitment and access to addiction treatment, especially proposals to move Section 35 civil commitments away from jails and prisons and into facilities licensed or approved by DPH or DMH. Chairs Velis and Domb framed the hearing as a discussion of how to support people in crisis with compassion, while also warning against using involuntary commitment as a way to remove unhoused people from public view. The hearing also touched on related concerns about discharge practices, treatment capacity, and the need for a broader continuum of care. Testimony split largely along two themes. Addiction researcher Keith Humphreys argued that many people enter treatment under pressure, that involuntary treatment can be ethically justified in the face of overdose risk, but that it should not be mandated unless high-quality services exist first; he emphasized the need for inpatient care when someone is a grave danger, followed by case management and outpatient support. MAMH’s Kate Alicante supported the bill, saying Massachusetts is the only state that commits people with substance use conditions to jails or prisons and that carceral settings add trauma and stigma; she pointed to prior legislative steps, including the Section 35 commission and the planned closure of DOC’s MESAC facility, as evidence that the Commonwealth is moving toward health-based settings. A major portion of the hearing focused on Stony Brook, a sheriff-run stabilization and treatment center in Hampden County. Boston City Councilor John Fitzgerald, several committee members, and multiple people in recovery described the facility as humane, well-run, and effective, with longer stays, medical monitoring, medication-assisted treatment, counseling, and warm handoffs to aftercare. Several witnesses said Stony Brook saved their lives or helped family members recover, and they argued that the sheriff’s office model should be expanded rather than eliminated. Others, including family members and advocates, countered that even a well-run correctional setting remains stigmatizing and that people should not be treated in facilities run by sheriffs or corrections when they have committed no crime. No vote was taken. The hearing concluded with continued testimony, including Senator Friedman’s support for Section 35 as a civil commitment tool but not in a criminal justice setting, and her separate support for a bill to speed inpatient mental health treatment.

Transcript Highlights:

• I a few weeks back, you know, station.
• Representative Allen: Look back at the numbers.
• or the money back because we haven't completed that transaction.
• or the money back because we haven't completed that transaction.
• <01:02:42.960> over<01:02:43.119> to it back over to it back over to >> Thank

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee heard House File 3642, as amended by the DE1, which would prohibit virtual currency kiosks in Minnesota. The author, Chair Kaggel, said the bill is intended to stop scammers from using crypto kiosks to defraud vulnerable people, especially older adults, because the transactions are often irreversible and hard to trace. Representative Perryman spoke in support, describing local fraud cases and saying the issue had come to her attention through St. Cloud residents and police. The bill was laid over for further work with the Department of Commerce and other interested members. Testimony from law enforcement and advocates strongly supported the ban. A St. Cloud police sergeant said the problem is statewide and described a case in which a 78-year-old woman lost $80,000 after being directed to a kiosk. A Woodbury detective said current safeguards, including warnings, limits, and refund provisions, have not stopped weekly victimization and that scammers coach victims to bypass protections. An AARP Minnesota volunteer said kiosks are a preferred vehicle for scammers because they move stolen funds quickly and are especially harmful to older adults, and he noted that the 2024 consumer protections have not been enough. The Department of Commerce also supported the bill, saying crypto kiosks are a growing fraud vector and citing 120 complaints over three years, nearly $1 million in reported losses, and 70 cases with $540,000 in losses already in 2025. The department said many victims do not report losses, so the true amount is likely higher. In contrast, Coinflip’s general counsel opposed a ban and argued that fraud should be addressed through stronger regulation, refunds, blockchain analytics, and customer-service requirements rather than prohibiting a legal product. He said scams would continue through other channels if kiosks were banned. In discussion, members asked about the number of kiosks, how long they have been operating in Minnesota, and the scale of losses; the department said there are about 350 licensed kiosks operated by 8 to 10 operators, though the total number may be higher.

Transcript Highlights:

• Back when I was practicing, I don't believe that Minnesota had parenting time expeditors back then.
• We got her back from there.
• It's not supposed to be a back and forth.
• Go back to the schedule that you're in.
• I won't be able to make that because I've got to travel back to get my kids; we'll be heading back that

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Child Custody Review Task Force met with a quorum, approved the prior meeting minutes, and reviewed a memorandum compiling member suggestions for possible legislation. The memo grouped ideas into topics including creation of a family court, expanded education for parents, attorneys, and judges, expedited hearings for parenting-time violations, limiting law enforcement involvement in custody disputes, creating parenting time expediters, and adopting more uniform court procedures. Members also discussed whether to form subcommittees, but the task force decided to continue working as a full committee rather than create subcommittees at this time. The committee then heard testimony from Dr. John Perez, a mental health professional, who described his personal custody experience and his professional work with families he believes have been affected by parental alienation. He argued for stronger education, faster court response times, and better tools to address intentional interference with parenting time. Members questioned him about his case history, the concept of parental alienation, and whether specialized family courts or judges with family-law training could help. Dr. Perez said a dedicated family court and faster hearings would likely have helped his situation. The task force spent substantial time discussing the possible creation of a family court. Judge Hovey supported the idea of a specialized family court or at least a study of one, saying family cases are distinct from ordinary adversarial litigation and that judges with family-law experience could better handle them. Several members agreed that a family court could improve consistency, expertise, and speed, but others cautioned that the task force’s current directive is focused on enforcement of existing orders rather than broader custody policy, and noted that voters had previously rejected equal shared parenting proposals. The group also discussed expedited procedures for parenting-time disputes, with Judge Hovey suggesting a 30-day hearing timeline may be workable. On education, members generally supported requiring parents to complete a parenting education course and adding educational materials explaining court process, child support, and what judges can and cannot do. Mr. McLean suggested a short instructional video for litigants and more family-law education for judges and attorneys, while Ms. Moldenhauer said education could be incorporated into scheduling orders or mediation orders. Members also discussed the Parents Forever course, including whether it should be mandatory in all counties and whether cost is a barrier; no vote was taken on any of these proposals.

Transcript Highlights:

• So if you can go look back reporting.
• <00:19:50.559> more opportunity to turn those back more opportunity to turn those back more
• with that bill back in 2021. with that bill back in 2021. >> Yes,<00:57:32.240> Mr.
• Uh, and I at the back end of the bill.
• offer it with that provision at the back offer it with that provision at the back end<01:00:05.200

Bills: HB0105, HB0107, SF0002

Keywords: K-12 education, school facilities, security improvements, public funding, state appropriations, school construction, local government funding, sales tax distribution, municipal funding, economic equity, state revenue, Wyoming Legislature, legislative appropriations, Legislative Service Office, LSO budget, general fund, biennial budget, legislative branch, legislator travel, per diem

Transcript Highlights:

• With that, we'll turn it back to the dais.
• I think we just need to roll that back.
• We'll get back to that in just a moment.
• That was chaptered back in 2017.
• And I know that there were changes done back in... ...how hard it was for us to work on it back in 2017

Summary: The committee heard AB 82, which would expand privacy and safety protections for patients and providers of reproductive and gender-affirming care. The author and supporters said the bill is needed because of rising harassment, doxing, and threats, and because sensitive health data could be used by hostile actors; opponents argued it would create constitutional problems, enable abuse of safe-at-home protections, and improperly shield providers and records from scrutiny. Public testimony was heavily divided, with many advocates in support and many privacy, civil liberties, and anti-trafficking or sex-based policy groups in opposition. The bill was moved on a due pass recommendation and remained on call. The committee then heard AB 331, which would clarify that county election certification is a ministerial duty, prohibit misleading ballot return envelopes, and require voter information guides to be delivered to jails in an acceptable format. The Department of Justice and several good-government groups supported the measure, the Secretary of State had no position after amendments, and a committee member noted ongoing concerns but supported it after the changes. The bill passed on a do pass recommendation to Appropriations and was placed on call. AB 1178 followed, proposing to protect undercover peace officers’ names, images, and likenesses in public records while preserving disclosure of sustained misconduct records. Law enforcement and public safety groups supported the bill as a needed safety measure, while journalists, transparency advocates, and civil liberties groups opposed it, saying existing law already protects officers and the new language could lead to overbroad withholding. After discussion about the scope of undercover status and the need for judicial discretion, the bill passed as amended to Appropriations. The committee also adopted a consent calendar. Later, AB 981 was heard, creating a five-county pilot program requiring intelligent speed assistance devices for certain reckless driving convictions. Supporters, including traffic safety advocates and crash victims, said the bill could reduce repeat speeding and save lives; opponents raised concerns about cost, installer oversight, liability for automakers, and the breadth of the pilot. The bill passed as amended to Appropriations. AB 22, which would repeal Proposition 57 and restrict release of sexually violent predators and certain sex offenders, drew strong opposition from youth justice, public defender, and civil liberties groups who said it would be unconstitutional and harmful; the chair recommended no, no motion was made, and the bill was held. Finally, AB 897, a squatter-removal bill, was presented with the author arguing it would protect property owners through a faster due-process process; the transcript cuts off during early support testimony and does not show a final action on that measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• to come back to Articles 1, 4, and 5.'
• So he's back here.
• So getting back to the exceptional items.
• The paid firefighter is going back to the department. The...
• getting some of these kiddos back.

Transcript Highlights:

• We went back to the community. We asked again.
• We went back to the community. We asked again.
• We expect to hear back from you.
• Staff will have responses back from them.
• She's coming back. Maybe we'll hear she is.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's a lot of back and forth.
• But I want to go back.
• We'll be back up.
• It comes back up, and we send it back down.
• It comes back up, and we send it back down.

Keywords: 994, senate, all

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes and then took up House Bill 4852, a strike-and-insert bill revising West Virginia’s food additive restrictions. Counsel explained that it moved the existing additive list into a new code section, kept the 2028 effective date, added exceptions for dietary supplements, alcoholic liquor, non-intoxicating beer, and small sellers under $5,000 per month, and created civil penalties for knowing violations. Testimony split between industry witnesses, who argued the bill and last year’s law would raise costs, burden interstate commerce, and conflict with federal regulation, and advocates who said the law is already prompting companies to reformulate and that the bill clarifies vague language tied to a federal injunction. Several amendments were offered to tie the law to FDA action or exempt soda, pepperoni rolls, frozen confections, and snack foods; some were adopted and others failed. The committee then adopted the strike-and-insert amendment as amended and reported HB 4852 to the full Senate with a do-pass recommendation. The committee next considered House Bill 5484, which creates felony offenses for interfering with a victim’s access to medical treatment or forensic care related to a sexual offense, or for forcing a victim of a sexual offense who becomes pregnant to have an illegal abortion, along with a conspiracy offense. Counsel said the strike-and-insert added clarifying language and definitions. Members raised concerns that the conspiracy language could be read to include the victim herself, and the bill sponsor said the intent was to target traffickers and abusers who keep victims from medical care and force abortions outside medical facilities. An amendment was adopted clarifying that nothing in the subsection imposes criminal liability on the victim of the sexual offense. The committee then adopted the strike-and-insert amendment, reported HB 5484 to the full Senate with a do-pass recommendation, and adopted a title amendment. The final bill discussed in the excerpt was House Bill 4468, which narrows confidentiality protections for victims in criminal complaints by limiting redaction to names and addresses, while still allowing disclosure to other governmental entities and permitting victims to request redaction of addresses from appellate decisions after July 1, 2026. Counsel said the bill would replace broader existing confidentiality language and remove provisions allowing disclosure upon a showing of justice or by subpoena. Members questioned whether the change would weaken victim privacy protections, noting that identifying information can include much more than names and addresses. The committee then began hearing testimony from a county prosecutor on the bill, but the excerpt ends before any vote or final action on HB 4468.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's a lot of back and forth.
• And so, but I want to go back.
• But I want to go back for one second.
• We'll be back up.
• It comes back up, and we send it back down.

Keywords: 994, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to vote quickly on that, then I'm going to go back to the minutes.
• Let's go back and pick up the minutes from the last meeting, February 17th.
• felt the state should put inflation back felt the state should put inflation back into<00:28:40.480
• Chair. and circle back for questions uh I think and circle back for questions uh I think you<00:40:41.560
• because things out of the you know back because things out of the you know back into<00:48:54.559

Bills: HF3

Keywords: legislative auditor, reporting, accountability, state finance, executive agency oversight, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And this ties back to what I said a little earlier.
• All right, backing up just slightly.
• I've kind of gone back and forth.
• Welcome back, former colleague. Senator Joe Bruzzo is here. Welcome back, Senator Brousso.
• Remember this, too: kindness never comes back empty. Never comes back empty.

Summary: The Senate took up Committee Substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 2F, a proposed constitutional amendment on property tax reform. The measure would increase the homestead exemption in stages, lower the assessment cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, and limit county and municipal ad valorem tax revenues to specified uses such as public safety, education, infrastructure, natural resources, debt service, employee benefits, and certain administrative costs. Supporters, led by Senator Avila, argued the proposal would provide meaningful property tax relief and push local governments to rein in spending, while opponents warned it would shift costs to fees, reduce local flexibility, and threaten funding for core services. Several amendments were offered and rejected. Senator Sharief proposed an income-based circuit breaker for property tax relief; Senator Smith offered a sunset clause; and Senator Berman proposed revising the ballot statement to better match the amended proposal and remove outdated references. Each amendment failed on recorded votes. During questioning and debate, senators pressed Avila on the ballot language, the effect on local services, whether the legislature could later restrict local spending by statute, and whether renters would benefit. Avila said the ballot language was not his and repeatedly stated he was presenting the governor’s proposal, while also saying local governments would need to prioritize budgets and that future legislatures could address implementation details. After the amendment votes, the joint resolution was read a third time and moved into final debate. Supporters said the proposal would give homeowners relief and force fiscal discipline at the local level. Opponents, including Senators Nathan, Bracey Davis, Smith, Polsky, and Errington, argued the measure was rushed, lacked a completed fiscal analysis or replacement revenue, and could harm police, fire, libraries, parks, housing, and other local services. They also criticized the ballot summary as misleading, especially regarding the staged homestead exemption increase. The transcript ends during debate, before any final vote on the joint resolution itself.

Transcript Highlights:

• They can come back in.
• Okay, back to my original line of questioning.
• I've heard that now in Florida, none has ever turned one back.
• And there's just no mechanism to get them back down.
• Back on the bill as amended. Senator Stewart would...

Bills: SJR47, SB1491, SB1579, SB1806, SB1552, SB483, SB63, SB137, SB346, SB514, SB1344, SB1360, SB1380, SB1437, SB1189, SB1217, SB1221, SB1262, SB1272, SB1325, SB1339, SB201

Keywords: voter ID, elections, constitutional amendment, Oklahoma, proof of identity, presidential electors, vacancies, oath of office, political party, property tax, valuation increase, taxpayer rights, homestead, protest process, foster care, adoption assistance, transitioning youth, Department of Human Services, voluntary services, county home rule charter

Transcript Highlights:

• Give us back our choice. Represent.
• Circumstance did you not push back?
• So going back over the.
• My blood work was back to normal, and I was deemed fully back to health.
• Luke's Episcopal Hospital back in the Denton Cooley days and back in Methodist Hospital in the 1990s.

Bills: HB 265, HB25

Keywords: youth camp, safety regulations, advisory committee, child welfare, health standards, summer camp, camp safety, child abuse reporting, child neglect, mandatory reporting, background check, criminal history check, sex offender registry, CPR training, first aid, public health, child protection, camp operator, camp counselor, Health and Safety Code

Transcript Highlights:

• apparently are cookies in the back apparently are cookies in the back celebrating<00:12:56.960><
• <00:21:29.560> as uh perhaps this bill can come back as uh perhaps this bill can come back
• So, it's going to make it a real problem when folks want to try to use those back-to-back.
• I’m back again.
• I'm back again. Um you, Madam Speaker. I'm back again.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Back to the main part of the bill.
• Director Kerner texted me back this morning that he was unavailable.
• I mean, the state of Florida told these kids, hey, we got your back.
• I mean, the state of Florida told these kids, hey, we got your back.
• It goes back, I think, to 2017.

Summary: The Senate Appropriations Committee met to hear SB 2-C, a major immigration enforcement bill sponsored by Senator Gruters and co-introduced by Senator Fine. The sponsor described the bill as a response to federal immigration priorities and said it replaces a single immigration officer with a State Board of Immigration Enforcement, expands local-federal cooperation, increases penalties for crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants, requires detention in certain cases, broadens information sharing, funds detention-bed expansion and law-enforcement training, and ends in-state tuition waivers for undocumented students. The bill also includes provisions related to sanctuary policies, voter fraud, transport of unauthorized aliens, and driver’s license-related offenses. The sponsor said the bill appropriates roughly $300 million overall, including $250 million for grants and $48 million for the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for interdiction and border-related enforcement work. Committee members questioned the bill’s scope, costs, and implementation. Senators focused heavily on the tuition-waiver repeal, asking how many students would be affected and whether the bill would harm students who have long lived in Florida. They also pressed on whether the bill should include stronger E-Verify provisions, how sanctuary-policy enforcement would work, whether local officials could be penalized for policy choices, and how immigration status would be verified in court and jail settings. The sponsor and Senator Fine said the tuition waiver would be removed for undocumented students, that the bill does not address E-Verify, and that the measure is intended to make immigration status a factor in detention and sentencing. Questions also addressed detention-bed capacity, reimbursement rates, and whether corrections staff would receive bonuses or salary increases; sponsors said bonuses are included for participating law enforcement, while broader salary issues would be handled in the regular budget process. Public testimony was sharply divided. Supporters and information-only witnesses, including Sheriff Bob Gualtieri and former officials, said the bill would help Florida coordinate with federal authorities, expand bed space, and close loopholes in existing immigration enforcement. Opponents from the Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU of Florida, Florida Policy Institute, labor groups, and immigrant advocates argued the bill is unconstitutional, likely to trigger litigation, and harmful to families, schools, and the economy. They warned that the pretrial detention provisions could lead to wrongful detentions and that the tuition changes would reduce access to higher education and cost the state tuition revenue. No final vote is reflected in the transcript excerpt, but the committee continued through public comment and extended the meeting to complete the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:09:08.880> to tokens such that we will come back to tokens such that we will come back
• USD is this way, where it's sort of a mix of crypto backing as well as fiat backing.
• USD is this way, where it's sort of a mix of crypto backing as well as fiat backing.
• to the issuer that able to go right back to the issuer that issuer<01:17:40.080> backs<01:17:
• uh have back stops that are independent. uh have back stops that are independent.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The meeting began with roll call and introductions of commission members and guests, followed by approval of the agenda and a motion to approve the February 10 minutes with a correction clarifying that one quoted statement was misattributed. The commission then moved into presentations. The main presentation came from the Conference of State Bank Supervisors on implementation of the federal GENIUS Act for stablecoins. The speaker reviewed the OCC’s recent 367-page proposed rule, noting it raises many open questions and design choices for states, and discussed expected upcoming rulemaking from the FDIC, Federal Reserve, and Treasury. The presentation focused on six areas: permissible issuer activities, reserve assets and redemption, risk management and supervision, treatment of state-qualified issuers, capital/operational backstops, and foreign issuers. It also flagged unresolved issues around Bank Secrecy Act/AML requirements and the meaning of “digital asset service provider” activities. A substantial portion of the discussion addressed yield restrictions, with the presenter explaining the OCC’s broad definition of yield and its rebuttable presumption against issuer-affiliated or related third-party yield arrangements. The speaker said this likely forecloses many existing white-label structures but leaves some room for third-party payments depending on distance from the issuer, and noted ongoing Senate debate over similar provisions. The presentation also covered reserve valuation, liquidity and diversification requirements, redemption timing, and supervisory expectations such as third-party oversight, IT security, exam cycles, and reporting. No additional votes or formal actions were taken beyond approving the amended minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll come back to 71.
• <01:50:58.079> in procedures extended so back in procedures extended so back in 2018<01:51
• and have a conversation that back and have a conversation back<02:07:22.520> I'm<02:07:22.679
• This goes back years.
• This goes back years.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The meeting began as a Division 3 work session on HB 71, but much of the early discussion focused on whether a previously discussed non-germane amendment could be considered or voted on that day. Members and the chair debated process and notice requirements, and the clerk’s guidance was that the amendment needed a separate public hearing before the full Finance Committee. The amendment was described as requiring DHHS contracts and addenda to include compliance with the Patient Bill of Rights, with a repeal date so the requirement would expire on November 30, 2026. The motion to move OTP on HB 71 with the amendment was withdrawn, and the committee agreed the amendment would be scheduled for a future full Finance hearing instead. The committee then turned to HB 71 itself and heard testimony from DHHS representatives John Williams and Jenny O’Higgins on the fiscal note and policy implications. Members questioned the estimate that the bill could put $12 million to $18 million per year in federal funding at risk, including HUD and Office of Refugee Resettlement funds. DHHS explained that the estimate was based on a broad reading of the bill’s term “specified alien,” which they said was not clearly defined in the bill, so they analyzed it using the federal definition of “alien” and assumed the bill could affect lawfully present non-citizens as well as undocumented individuals. They said the figure represented a worst-case scenario and that they were not claiming the loss was certain. Members also pressed DHHS on whether the bill could affect emergency sheltering in schools, public academies, or institutions of higher learning during disasters. DHHS said the language could create conflicts with federal funding conditions because emergency shelter programs generally cannot impose barriers on who may be sheltered, and they warned that excluding certain people could affect refugee-related and HUD funding. Questions were raised about whether the bill’s language would apply to private institutions as well as public ones, and whether the state could still use schools in short-term emergencies. DHHS said the language was broad, that they could not answer every legal question definitively, and that they would need input from public health and legal staff. No final vote on HB 71 was taken in the portion provided; the committee remained in discussion/work session mode after the amendment motion was withdrawn.

Transcript Highlights:

• , and that's the purpose: joining back to the classroom and coming back.
• and that's the purpose is joining back to the classroom and come back.
• We can come back and as well.
• We can come back and as well.
• And the look-back window, rewind us what that is? The look-back window, Madam Chair and Mr.

Bills: HJR6, HJR7, HB120, HB60, HB151, HR1, HM13, SB40, SB104

Keywords: constitutional amendment, legislative sessions, veto override, New Mexico legislature, session length, legislative session, even-numbered years, New Mexico Constitution, student behavior, physical restraint, seclusion, public schools, training, de-escalation, student safety, behavior interventions, criminal offenses, peace officer, Victims of Crime Act, law enforcement

Transcript Highlights:

• When they pushed it back, they pushed everything—authorities and everything—back, but they didn't transition
• Um, back to you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• So, I'd like to see you come back, the state land commissioner come back and see those requests for FTEs
• I'd like to see that when you guys come back, maybe we'll have back in December if you're coming back
• Have happened that OFRA took the child in, put him back in, and was that court-ordered to put him back