Transcript Highlights:

• So we think anytime we can started with the respiratory care, but started with the respiratory care,
• 48.640> creates<00:01:48.960> a respiratory care it just creates a respiratory care it
• <00:03:10.800> as Association for Respiratory Care as Association for Respiratory Care as
• It'll also increase care and opportunities for care for Kentuckians.
• It'll also increase care and opportunities for care for Kentuckians.

Keywords: Call to Order 00:00 Roll Call 0:31 HB 36 Discussion 1:10 HB 36 Vote 8:20 HB 776 Discussion 9:42 HB 776 Vote 12:19 HB 236 Discussion 14:15 Adjournment 20:40, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Primary care settings.
• And also mental health care as well.
• Individuals that require mental health care and behavioral health care show up in primary care clinics
• Maybe a little bit of urgent care, but certainly not hospital-based care.
• So the pipeline with having medical care and transitional, as you know, transitional living and care

Transcript Highlights:

• feedback option is only after someone has been taken care of.
• Basically, it's an employer match on their savings. Right.
• Yeah, I mean, basically it flows through to us.
• If you all won't provide any care for us.
• If you all won't provide any care for us.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• think that tells everyone how they care think that tells everyone how they care to<00:21:22.640>
• uh care. That's the wrong way to put it. uh care.
• 2 this morning about child care. Yeah. 2 this morning about child care. Yeah.
• We have direct care patients that the state is responsible for providing residential care.
• women who want to access abortion care. women who want to access abortion care.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee met in Division 3 work session on HB 2 and began by noting a delayed start to allow the Legislative Budget Assistant to finish a large packet of updated amendments and revisions. The chair said the goal for the day was to move as many items as possible, with any cleanup deferred to a Friday follow-up. Members also discussed the process for handling public and department testimony on selected items before votes. Several early amendments were taken up and voted on. The committee unanimously recommended items dealing with repealing the liquor transfer to the alcohol fund and redirecting liquor-related revenue to the general fund, and it also approved an amendment revising Granite Advantage funding so there would be no automatic transfer from the liquor fund, instead using a general fund appropriation. Members then approved repealing the foster grandparent program by a 5-4 vote, and later approved an amendment requiring DHS contractors to comply with the patients’ bill of rights by a 9-0 vote. The committee also approved incorporating House Bill 94 on Medicaid coverage of circumcision by a 5-4 vote, while deferring the Wick Farmers Market Nutrition Program repeal for more discussion. The committee spent substantial time on the youth risk behavior survey amendment. Supporters said the change was intended to clarify opt-out procedures and ensure parents, guardians, and students are clearly notified that they may opt out without negative consequences. Some members raised privacy concerns and said the language could add administrative burden, but the amendment was ultimately recommended to Finance by a recorded vote of 8-1. Another amendment on civil rights and contractor standards for DHHS was discussed but not voted on after concerns were raised about vague enforcement language and possible penalties. The committee also struck amendment 1026 as redundant, with members noting related work in existing law and Senate Bill 134, and then moved on to other items, including a revised equity/access-related amendment that was postponed for later discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• We don't care, right? Okay, so...
• going to die in this hill don't care going to die in this hill don't care that<00:45:14.359>
• Yeah, something small, basically.
• <01:18:19.360> basically get you know but basically basically get you know but basically basically
• Who cares?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The discussion focused on a cannabis legalization/regulation bill and whether it should be retained for further study or moved forward. Members debated the fiscal impact, with one side emphasizing that the bill would cost about $7.1 million in the first two years before generating revenue, while supporters argued the House should make a statement in favor of legalization despite likely opposition from the Senate and governor. There was also disagreement over strategy: some said retaining the bill until closer to the next election would give the issue more visibility, while others said delaying would only avoid sending a bill the Senate was unlikely to take up anyway. A major point of contention was whether cannabis should be regulated by a new cannabis commission or placed under the Liquor Commission. Supporters of the Liquor Commission argued it already has enforcement infrastructure, especially for age restrictions, and could handle cannabis more efficiently without creating a new bureaucracy. Opponents said cannabis is a different industry that would require specialized expertise, and they objected to expanding the Liquor Commission, which they described as unpopular and costly. The committee also discussed past versions of the bill, including concerns about limited licenses and the perception that the earlier approach favored large businesses. Members reviewed specific provisions such as licensing fees, THC limits, and cultivation categories. One member noted a $10,000 fee for retail cannabis stores and cannabis product manufacturers authorized to perform extractions, while a smaller tier-one cultivator fee was described as a lower-cost option for small growers. There was also discussion of whether the bill would allow sales through general retail outlets or only dedicated cannabis stores, and whether plants and seeds were covered. No final vote or action was clearly recorded in the excerpt, but the main procedural question was whether to retain the bill for more work or advance it as written.

Transcript Highlights:

• went to Air Force basic went to Air Force basic training<00:43:07.200> uh<00:43:07.599>
• <03:57:33.520> Professionals from these healthc Care Professionals from these healthc Care
• care and acupuncture behavioral<05:20:57.760> health<05:20:58.120> care<05:20:58.360><
• That is weaving behavioral health care into the primary care setting.
• , weaving behavioral health care into the primary care setting.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard testimony on House Bill 167, which would add ski, snowboard, and boat wax containing PFAS to the state’s consumer-product restrictions. The sponsor argued the product is already banned in many places, has PFAS-free alternatives, and is used in ways that can directly contaminate water rather than landfills. She cited high PFAS levels in several New Hampshire lakes and said the bill was a simple extension of prior PFAS legislation. A witness also described a personal experience where a liquid ski wax disappeared from the market and later returned, likely because of PFAS concerns. The chair then closed the hearing on HB 167 without a vote. The committee then opened a hearing on House Bill 312, dealing with college athletes’ name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. Representative Moffett said the bill was modeled on New Jersey law and intended to let student-athletes earn compensation from NIL without losing institutional scholarships, while also requiring licensed representation and setting limits on certain endorsements. He described the measure as proactive because NIL rules are evolving and could create conflicts among schools and future lawsuits. Members questioned whether the bill should apply to two-year institutions, whether it should exclude firearms and weapons, and whether the scholarship protections would cover need-based or academic aid as well as athletic scholarships. Moffett said the scholarship language was intended to protect scholarships generally, but not need-based aid specifically, and he acknowledged discomfort with some of the endorsement restrictions. Public testimony on HB 312 was mixed. One supporter, a former Division III athlete and coach, backed the bill but urged removal of a section allowing institutions or athletic bodies to use an athlete’s NIL without compensation, arguing most New Hampshire athletes do not receive NIL money and should not have to work extra jobs to cover basic expenses. The chair also raised concerns about the bill’s contractual and identity-rights implications, referencing prior committee work on a J.D. Salinger-related identity case and noting the committee had previously declined to get involved in similar contractual disputes. No vote was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• in the Executive recommendation for Managed Care Rates.
• care rate increases.
• On line 289, $48 million to pilot a child care assistance affordability pilot to subsidize child care
• The 400 is a cutoff to get care at all, right?
• by growing the child care workforce.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm talking cheating people, basically deceiving people.
• But they can do that and basically bend people to their will.
• Taking care of police, everything.
• So we need to be careful, and it's and Under $300 million. So we need to be careful.
• Basically, it is to amend the IDEA bill.

Summary: The committee first considered House Resolution 1016, which would have allowed introduction of a bill by Representative Richmond addressing disclosure and restrictions for certain real-estate arrangements where buyers purchase interests in entities rather than direct ownership of property. Richmond said the measure was aimed at transparency, consumer protection, and preventing private tribunals or discriminatory practices, while several members questioned whether it would affect homeowners associations, hunting clubs, arbitration clauses, or duplicate existing law. After discussion, the committee voted down the resolution. House Resolution 1006, sponsored by Representative Schultz, proposed increasing the Homestead Tax Credit by $75, from $600 to $675, using a fund created by Amendment 79 and supported by sales tax revenue. Schultz argued the fund could support the increase now and that families needed relief amid high prices. The committee approved the resolution. The committee then heard House Resolution 1007, presented by Senator King and Representative Eaton, which sought to change how turnback funds are distributed to counties, with a focus on giving counties more predictable annual funding for roads, jails, water, sewer, public safety, and other infrastructure. Members raised concerns about taking $150 million off the top of sales tax revenue and about whether the bill should be handled through budget language instead; the resolution failed. House Resolution 1008, by Representative Wooten and Senator King, would have amended the LEARNS education program to reduce costs, limit or change eligibility, and add performance-based requirements and reporting for certain school-choice funding. Supporters said the program was financially unsustainable and needed accountability, while opponents argued the proposal would create larger problems and that the issue should be handled in the regular session. The resolution failed after a point of order prevented reading a supporting letter into the record. Finally, House Resolution 1009 and House Resolution 1013, both tied to Senator Bryant’s proposals on local control over crypto mines and data centers, were discussed together with testimony about water use, energy demand, and local opposition; both failed. House Resolution 1015, which would have amended the IDEA economic-development bill to remove eminent domain authority and address board accountability, also failed after members said more concerns remained to be worked out.

Transcript Highlights:

• It makes health care more expensive for state employees like DPS troopers, more expensive health care
• I have big concerns: 30,000, I think, one Arizona without health care, losing health care as a result
• There are basically two here.
• It's a very, very basic bill.
• Do we take care of our poor? Of course we take care of our poor.

Summary: The House convened, approved the journal, and spent much of the opening portion recognizing guests and interns from both parties, along with former lawmakers and a newly seated member, Representative Sylvia Allen. The chamber then took up House Concurrent Resolution 2065 honoring the late Alfredo Gutierrez. Members from both parties gave extended remarks about his life as a civil rights advocate, student activist, legislator, and mentor, and the resolution was unanimously adopted and transmitted to the Senate. Family members of Gutierrez were recognized in the gallery during the memorial tribute. The House then moved into Committee of the Whole on the first budget-related measures. On House Bill 4138, the “feed bill”/budget operations measure, Democrats argued the budget favored corporations and data centers over seniors, health care, housing, universities, and vulnerable families, while Republicans defended it as a continuation of prior policy and said it preserved tax conformity and modest agency cuts. After debate and questions, the committee recommended the bill do pass and the House adopted that report, sending HB 4138 to engrossing. The chamber next considered House Bill 4139, the amusement/gaming-related budget bill. Members debated whether it was essentially unchanged from last year’s budget language, with Republicans saying it was a continuation bill and that gaming-related provisions would support rural economies and tourism, while Democrats questioned the broader budget context and its effects on working families. The committee recommended HB 4139 do pass, and the House adopted that recommendation. The House then began debate on House Bill 4140, the state budget implementation bill, focusing on the budget stabilization fund and a proposed government efficiency initiative; discussion was still underway at the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, Senate File 3612, which we're calling a patient-centered care bill, um, would basically take our
• care, and in many cases actually interfering with the patient care.
• bill, um would centered care bill, um would basically<00:01:10.720> take<00:01:11.040> our
• . care. care.
• <01:15:13.040> other care or care continuity or other care or care continuity or other measures

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , especially for the life care contracts, the residents are prepaying for their medical care, for their
• future care.
• Higher levels of care can increase fees significantly, unless someone has a life care contract that keeps
• They're higher monthly care fees across all the care levels.
• This is a large regulatory agency that deals primarily with child care and residential care for adults

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission’s fifth meeting focused on consumer protections and resident rights in continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), with a presentation by Yvonne Choyah of UC Law San Francisco. She described California’s CCRC framework, including entrance fee structures, monthly fee increases, contract types (A, B, and C), disclosure requirements, and regulatory oversight. A major theme was that residents often do not understand the contracts they sign, while providers retain broad discretion over fees, transfers, terminations, and changes to the physical plant. She also emphasized that California’s regulator is understaffed and not well suited to oversee the complex financial and insurance-like aspects of CCRCs, and that resident complaints and litigation can be slow and difficult. Choyah and commission members discussed several consumer-protection issues, including refundable versus repayable-on-resale entrance fees, rising monthly care fees, the decline of life care contracts, and the need for clearer disclosures and better comparative data for prospective residents. She noted that California requires annual disclosure statements, resident bill of rights materials, and some fee-related reporting, but that enforcement and accessibility remain weak. Members raised questions about resident board representation, accreditation, refund requirements, and whether state agencies or resident associations could help explain contracts to consumers before admission. Choyah suggested stronger oversight, more financial expertise in regulation, and better transparency about ownership and fee-setting. The meeting ended with discussion of the commission’s next steps toward its August report. Staff said a draft report would be prepared from the commission’s discussions and circulated for comment before final revisions. The chair also announced staff transitions: Jennifer would be leaving the State House role, and Juliana Fernandez and Vicky Halal would be the main contacts going forward. The commission adjourned after thanking Choyah for her presentation and answering member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• So it's basically a contract.
• and had basically uh gambled it away. and had basically uh gambled it away.
• , who is taken or they need child care, who is taken or they need child care, things<03:37:25.439
• United States basically. United States basically.
• > operation<04:08:47.760> of Uh, basically, uh, impaired operation of Uh, basically, uh

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused primarily on House Bill 1087 and House Bill 123, both related to firearms. HB 1087 was introduced as a Second Amendment measure, but after questions from the chair and discussion with law enforcement, the sponsor agreed it should be set aside and referred to a study committee for further review, rather than advanced as written. The New Hampshire Chiefs of Police Association testified in opposition to the bill as written, while also indicating support for the sponsor’s proposed amendment or a study approach. The bulk of the discussion centered on HB 123, which would require the return of firearms after a not guilty verdict or dismissal. The sponsor and several members described the bill’s purpose as speeding up the return of property, but law enforcement and judicial branch witnesses raised concerns about federal law, the need to ensure a person is still legally eligible to possess firearms, and the bill’s 24-hour return requirement. Witnesses from the State Police and judicial branch explained the current process, including background checks through the state police gun line, and said the existing procedure already aims to return firearms promptly while allowing time to verify disqualifying information. Members and witnesses discussed possible amendments, including removing language that would bar background checks and instead tying return of firearms to completion of the check within a set time frame. Judicial branch and State Police witnesses said a process that requires a background check and return within a reasonable period, with notice if there is a delay or denial, would better address safety and legal concerns. The hearing ended without a vote; the committee closed the public hearing and indicated it would continue working on the language before executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• helpful because it has basically helpful because it has basically everything<00:26:00.240> in
• health care to immigrants. health care to immigrants.
• <00:47:43.440> does language, but but what it basically does language, but but what it basically
• 28.640> and<00:52:28.880> that's basically in 30 days, and that's basically in 30 days,
• there's agreement on that basically there's agreement on that basically principle<00:57:42.079><

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That could go toward patient care or staff wages.
• Sometimes... ...that could go toward patient care or staff wages.
• To be clear, it's not an innovation; it's a hidden tax on dental care.
• You've pointed out a tax on a tax, basically, or a fee on a tax.
• I've cared for him many times.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Financial Services heard testimony on several bills focused on financial security, banking regulation, and payment-card fees. Treasurer Deborah Goldberg supported the Massachusetts baby bonds proposal (H. 48) and also endorsed bills on matched savings (H. 1158/S. 737) and retirement planning/Secure Choice (H. 1143/S. 722), arguing these measures would help address wealth inequality, build assets, and improve retirement readiness. Supporters of baby bonds included policy experts and health advocates from Children’s Health Watch and Boston Medical Center, who said early-life asset building could improve long-term economic and health outcomes for children in low-income families. AARP also urged passage of the retirement planning bill, citing the large share of private-sector workers without access to an employer retirement plan. Representative Donato testified for H. 1143, describing it as a voluntary retirement-savings opportunity for workers at small employers. The committee also heard testimony on H. 3933, concerning the Massachusetts Credit Union Share Insurance Corporation, from former Bank Commissioner Mike Hanson, who defended the state’s full deposit insurance system for credit unions and savings institutions as a longstanding consumer-protection model. The Massachusetts Bankers Association raised concerns about the bill’s technical provisions and broader credit union/bank competitive issues, while the Cooperative Credit Union Association supported related legislation allowing modest compensation for credit union directors (S. 821/H. 1338) and flexibility for state financial institutions to grow through partnerships (S. 723). Bankers opposed those credit union bills, arguing they would upset a level playing field and blur long-standing distinctions between banks and credit unions. A major portion of the hearing focused on H. 1259/S. 688, which would prohibit card interchange fees on the tax and gratuity portions of restaurant transactions. Restaurant owners and the Massachusetts Restaurant Association testified in favor, saying the fees are a significant and growing expense, especially as most customers now pay by card; they argued the bills would save restaurants money without affecting state revenue. Credit union, banking, and payments-industry representatives opposed the bills, saying interchange helps fund fraud protection and payment infrastructure, that the proposal would create compliance burdens and likely litigation, and that it would mainly affect Massachusetts-chartered institutions while national banks could be preempted. Committee members noted that a commission on payment-card fees is being established and said the issue would be studied further. The hearing also included support for a separate bill on virtual credit cards for dental providers, with dentists saying automatic virtual-card payments impose hidden processing fees and fraud risks.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is where the federal government is basically taking in $1.9 trillion on an annual basis, less than
• Then there's another series of programs that are basically kind of set up on autopilot for funding.
• Basically, what they were saying is, if you have something like that in your state.
• I testified to LFC, basically take that to the bank, and I think that's going to be the case.
• company for, but they've got care elsewhere.

Transcript Highlights:

• , or 19%, on basic care services for children and families.
• <00:02:59.040> with basic care services for people with basic care services for people with
• <00:03:04.440> care billion or 19% on the basic care billion or 19% on the basic care services
• /c> effect looking at basic care uh we have effect looking at basic care uh we have a<00:09:50.360>
• a witness, maybe witnesses, and then you basically can choose a health care agent.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The really basic services.
• Let's talk about health care.
• The health care sector, okay?
• and home care programs.
• Even if you don't care about schools, roads, health care, social services, or anything else, these ballot

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on two proposed ballot initiatives: one to reduce the state personal income tax rate from 5% to 4% over three years, and another to revise the state’s tax collection cap/62F process so it would be based on prior-year collections plus wage growth and include surtax revenue. The committee chair and House co-chair outlined the hearing process, and the first witness was Doug Howgate of the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation, who testified as the committee’s subject-matter expert on both measures. He said the income tax proposal would lower taxes broadly but would reduce state revenue by about $5.4 billion when fully implemented, with an estimated $800 million hit in FY27, and he discussed possible effects on competitiveness, taxpayer savings, and public finances. On the 62F proposal, he said the revised cap would make refunds more likely, could have produced several large refunds in recent years, and would reduce stabilization fund deposits and constrain recovery after recessions. Committee members questioned Howgate about competitiveness, outmigration, prior tax ballot measures, spending growth, MassHealth, and the interaction between the income tax and surtax. He emphasized that taxes are only one part of the state’s overall competitiveness and that housing, public services, and other factors also matter. He also noted that the surtax is constitutionally restricted but can still support ongoing spending choices. After his testimony, the committee moved to the proponents’ panel. Proponents of both initiatives, including representatives from Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts, the National Federation of Independent Business, Pioneer Institute, and the Mass Opportunity Alliance, argued that the measures would improve affordability, help retain residents and businesses, and support job growth. They cited polling support, outmigration, small-business reinvestment, and comparisons to lower-tax states such as North Carolina. Their economist, Rebecca Paxton, said her model showed smaller revenue losses than critics claim and projected that the revised revenue cap would not create additional annual revenue losses while producing more regular taxpayer refunds. Committee members pressed the panel on competitiveness, prior ballot initiative implementation, and whether the measures would actually address broader affordability pressures; the hearing ended with the committee continuing to take questions from the proponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• cameras in child care started. cameras in child care started.
• and not family child care? and not family child care?
• access to this data in the child care access to this data in the child care setting<00:14:07.040
• > any<00:18:13.280> access that eliminated basically any access that eliminated basically
• and there's a lot of people who care and there's a lot of people who care about<00:22:55.160>

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: State Representative Nolan West announced “Harvey’s Law,” a proposal to require child care centers that receive state funding through CCAP, early learning scholarships, or Great Start compensation to install cameras in infant and toddler rooms and retain footage for 28 days. West said the bill is an expansion of portions of House File 1915 passed last year, arguing that cameras are needed for transparency, accountability, and child safety, and that waiting for a maltreatment violation before requiring cameras is too late. He also said the measure is aimed at centers rather than family child care, and that he would like to see cameras more broadly but is focusing this bill on state-funded centers. West and Harvey’s parents, Catherine and Hunter Mucklebust, described Harvey’s death at daycare and said cameras could have revealed earlier abuse, prevented later harm, and led to stronger accountability. They said they believe Harvey would still be alive if cameras had been installed, and that even if the bill does not pass in full, any step toward cameras would be meaningful. A statement from Blaine Police Captain Mark Borboom was read, saying a 2024 child care abuse investigation showed how a 7-day retention period can cause critical evidence to be lost and that cameras are about transparency and protection, not surveillance. During questions, West addressed privacy and cybersecurity concerns, saying the bill uses closed-circuit systems, access controls, and audit logs, and that cybersecurity experts would testify at the committee hearing. He said the main opposition is the risk of hacking, but he believes child safety outweighs that concern. West also clarified that the bill discussed at a separate 3:00 hearing was a different measure related to CCAP fraud and attendance verification, not Harvey’s Law. The Mucklebusts said they expect a long legislative process but remain committed to pushing the bill forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• . basically. basically.
• Federal government basically is providing insurance in the Affordable Care Act unless the state plans
• the Affordable Care Act. the Affordable Care Act.
• Is that<01:04:48.480> basic? that basic? that basic?
• >> don't care to care for and we're saying >> don't care to care for and we're saying the

Bills: SB170, SB177, SB207, SB208, SB215, HB27, SB219, SB247, SB232, SB81

Keywords: 923, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Allowing employees who will not utilize basic, safe medical care to work in... ...employees who will
• not utilize basic, safe medical care to work in medical settings deprivizes the patients and places the
• health care.
• Thank you. ...wants to have gender-affirming care, which is health care. Thank you so much.
• We all care very deeply about our children. We care very deeply about our ancestors. We are humans.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The Senate met with 28 members present and approved the journal, then took up several motions to recall or reconsider previously passed House bills, including HB 2035, HB 2249, and HB 2192. The chamber then resolved into Committee of the Whole to consider a series of bills and memorials. Major floor action centered on HB 2248, a public health bill restricting medical intervention requirements; HB 2313, relating to teacher strikes and remote instruction; HB 2379 and HB 2380, both dealing with school district governing boards; HB 2720, relating to prostitution assessment and the anti-trafficking fund; HB 2873, concerning local government referendum petitions; and several memorials and resolutions on foreign policy, education, water, and energy. HB 2248 drew the most debate, with supporters arguing for parental and individual choice and opponents warning it would undermine public health protections, especially for children, immunocompromised people, and patients in schools and medical settings. Amendments were adopted in committee, and the bill advanced. HB 2379 and HB 2380 also prompted extended debate over school board training and livestreaming requirements, with opponents calling them unfunded mandates or attacks on democracy and supporters emphasizing transparency and fiscal responsibility. HB 2873 was heavily discussed as a Marana-specific referendum measure tied to a local data center dispute; supporters said stakeholders agreed to the language, while opponents said it was an end run around voters and pending court proceedings. In third reading, the Senate passed HB 2118 on mobile food vendors, HCM 2009 on mineral access and federal land withdrawals, HCR 2015 on school physical activity and dietary guidelines, HCR 2020 on housing outside designated service areas with assured water supply, HCR 2057 supporting next-generation geothermal energy, and HB 2248, HB 2379, and HB 2380. The chamber also passed HCM 2001 and HCM 2002 urging federal terrorist designations for the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR, and HCR 2047 recognizing Judea and Samaria. These memorials and resolutions drew strong opposition from senators who said they targeted Muslims, promoted religious or ideological messaging, or were not based on adequate evidence. The Senate also adopted a House request to adjourn after April 22 and then adjourned until April 21, 2026 at 10 a.m.