Transcript Highlights:

• During a non-essential instruction time, they have their lesson, then they bring the kids back. back
• They go back to exactly what they had before.
• I give back to my community every single day.
• Bartos comes back. Ms. Bartos is back in. How about Will Davies? Come forward please, sir.
• Why stop investing now, right when we're ready to give back?

Bills: SB1798, SB1835, SB1319, SB2942, SB2928, SB784, SB1049

Keywords: higher education, tuition rates, financial support, immigration status, Texas law, SB 1835, resident tuition, nonresident students, scholarship students, public higher education, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Education Code Section 54.213, tuition waiver, in-state tuition, out-of-state students, higher education finance, enrollment cap, capacity limit, workforce development area, nonimmigrant visa

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to be back to the same problem of backing up the system, and the reality is anybody who had
• We're going to be back to the same problem of backing up the system, and the reality is anybody who had
• We're going to be back to the same problem of backing up the system, and the reality is anybody who had
• <00:13:13.680> to otherwise we're going to be back to otherwise we're going to be back to
• So let's back up.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on several bills. SB 335 would route objections by political party officers to candidate nomination papers through the Office of Elections. The State Election Director testified that his office was not the right venue for party-membership challenges because it could create conflicts and force the Attorney General to represent the chief election officer in court; members discussed whether all objections should instead go directly to Circuit Court, but no action was taken. SB 280 would expand first-degree negligent injury to cover injuries negligently caused by intoxicated drivers. The Public Defender opposed the bill as too harsh and urged either a lower penalty or clearer statutory definitions of “under the influence,” while the Prosecuting Attorney supported it as a needed increase in accountability for drunk drivers who actually injure someone. Committee members raised concerns about overlap with existing offenses, proportionality, and whether the change would increase jury-trial volume; the prosecutor responded that the bill would apply to a smaller subset of cases involving actual injury and would help ensure more serious treatment of those cases. The committee also heard SB 292, establishing Safe Harbor protections for survivors of sexual exploitation who seek medical or law enforcement assistance, with testimony in support from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, HPD, U Alliance, and others, and no opposition. SB 31, concerning an additional penalty for dog owners whose dogs destroy property on agricultural land, drew only supportive testimony. SB 356 would require restitution in the form of financial support to the minor children of victims killed or disabled by an intoxicated driver; the Public Defender opposed it as better suited to civil court and questioned enforcement after probation, while the Prosecuting Attorney supported it and said courts can issue enforceable restitution orders. Testimony also strongly supported SB 1284, a proposed constitutional amendment prohibiting discrimination based on ethnicity, age, disability, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, and pregnancy outcomes, with supporters arguing it would strengthen protections in response to current political conditions. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• back of the budget cut. back of the budget cut. Right?
• So cutting anything more than... cut back security, cut back on trials, cut back security, cut back on
• So, next we have back here. Yeah.
• Back here. Yeah. Page 19.
• back 50% of the cost of this training. back 50% of the cost of this training.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee worked through several HB 2 budget amendments, focusing first on energy-related transfers and then on judicial funding. For the energy item, members discussed moving remaining money from the renewable energy fund into the general fund for the biennium, with later-year amounts going to the general fund rather than ratepayers. They noted the proposal was based on prior House Bill 111 language, that the exact amount was still being worked out with the Department of Energy, and that some language about “incentive payments” was being removed or clarified. Amendment 1211H was moved and adopted on a 5-4 vote. The committee then considered amendment 1040 on the governor’s scholarship fund, which would eliminate the program and sweep uncommitted funds. Members supporting the program argued it helps New Hampshire students afford in-state college and should be reworked rather than repealed; opponents said the remaining balance was limited and the program should be ended. Amendment 1040 was defeated 4-5. The committee then turned to a judicial council request tied to a Franklin Pierce criminal justice clinic that had previously used ARPA funds. Supporters said the clinic cleared 323 cases in nine months, provided training for future attorneys, and could reduce more expensive assigned-counsel costs by helping the public defender system handle cases more efficiently. The amendment would add $100,000 to the judicial council line for that purpose. There was some confusion over the line item and whether the request should be attributed to the judicial branch or judicial council, which was corrected during discussion. Members also discussed a larger issue: the judicial council’s budget request appeared lower than intended because of a possible clerical error in how prior-year funding was calculated, especially after the last budget combined HB 1 and HB 2 funding. The committee compared the public defender line and assigned counsel line, noting that if public defender funding is cut, more cases would shift to assigned counsel, which is more expensive. No final vote on the judicial council amendment is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• They don't actually dig the bones back. They just cover it back up.
• They don't actually dig the bones back. They just cover it back up.
• They don't actually dig the bones back. They just cover it back up.
• They don't actually dig the bones back. They just cover it back up.
• They just cover it back the bones back.

Bills: HB2611, HB2102, HB1710, HB1868, HB1920, HB1812, HB1733, HB1715, HB1723, HB1724, HB1727, HB1711

Keywords: HB2611, Hawaii antitrust, rental housing, rent price-fixing, algorithmic pricing, algorithmic rent-setting, property management software, pricing algorithms, rent coordination, price-fixing, collusion, cartel, multifamily housing, landlord software, occupancy levels, lease terms, Attorney General, public education program, consumer protection, housing affordability

Summary: The committee first took up HB 2611, which would prohibit algorithmic price-setting in Hawaii’s rental market, require public education by the Attorney General, and establish fines and penalties. The Department of the Attorney General opposed the bill, saying its language was too unclear and could expose landlords and agents to criminal and civil liability for ordinary rent-setting practices based on public information or assistance from property professionals. Members asked about antitrust standards, tacit agreement, and whether using county-published affordable-rent schedules would be unlawful; the AG said that would not be unlawful if based on public information and without collusion. Testimony was mixed, with the chair noting support from the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, Hawaii Realtors with comments, 50501 Hawaii and General Strike Hawaii, Haloha Project, 13 individuals, and one opponent. The committee then heard HB 2102, which clarifies that residential projects involving ground disturbance in high-risk areas remain subject to state historic preservation review and removes an exemption for lands presumed nominally sensitive. The Office of Planning and Sustainable Development and the Department of Planning and Permitting supported the measure, saying it would improve clarity and ensure review focuses on projects most likely to affect historic properties or iwi kupuna, while also urging language refinements to better define sensitive sandy-soil areas and balance preservation with housing timelines. NAP Hawaii opposed the bill, arguing it would undo progress made last session and that the current process already includes protections for inadvertent discoveries and efficiency for lower-risk areas. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs strongly supported HB 2102, explaining it was responding to beneficiary complaints about late-added language in last year’s law and saying the nominally sensitive-area language should be removed because it was adopted without sufficient stakeholder input and could be harmful to iwi kupuna protections. Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation and several individuals also supported the bill. Committee discussion focused on how “nominally sensitive” areas are determined, whether project proponents could self-certify areas as exempt, and how high-density residential projects should be treated; SHPD said it uses survey and monitoring data to map sensitivity, that highly sensitive areas like Kīauea are not nominally sensitive, and that some high-density projects should remain exempt if they do not involve new ground disturbance. The hearing included no final vote in the portion provided, but the chair noted 48 individuals in support and continued questioning on the bill’s definitions and implementation.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:05:04.000> to budget recommendation took us back to budget recommendation took us back
• I will say we're desperately need back I will say we're desperately need back is<00:16:50.560>
• back some of the eeries to Mississippi. back some of the eeries to Mississippi.
• do they pay that back into the system? do they pay that back into the system? Okay. Okay.
• uh as it relates back to other programs. uh as it relates back to other programs.

Keywords: Appropriations - Room 216, 14 January, 2026; 1:00 PM, 925, all

Summary: The committee first heard a budget presentation from a charter-school authorizer agency. Witnesses explained that the agency no longer receives the federal CSP grant, that a one-time $499,000 equipment grant was not recurring, and that in FY25 they also had no general fund appropriation. They said their special-fund revenue has grown but is not enough to sustain operations alone, especially because the money arrives once a year and the agency needs a cash balance in advance. Their budget request sought a mix of general and special funds, but the legislative budget recommendation stayed near the FY26 appropriation level. Members asked about salary growth and contractual spending; the agency said higher salaries reflected doctorate-level staff and a planned sixth position, while contractual costs covered technical assistance, consultants, CPA reviews, and outside legal support. The agency also said a pending bill, identified as House Bill 2, could significantly affect its operations and revenue. Members asked about Republic, and the agency said a peer report had just been released, the school had made operational changes, and progress was being made though questions remained. The Library Commission then presented its budget request. The outgoing director announced retirement and introduced the incoming director, and praised the agency’s recent federal and state audits with no findings. The commission asked to restore two headcount reductions in the budget recommendation, saying the positions were hard to fill because they require specialized librarianship credentials and that losing them would cost about $130,000. It also asked to restore federal spending authority in case IMLS funding became uncertain, and requested about $173,000 for a 5% salary progression pool because turnover had reached 35% and many employees were near the start step. Senators asked about the open positions and turnover; the commission said one position had been open 10 months, another about eight months, and some turnover was due to retirements. Mississippi Public Broadcasting then presented its request for an $18.153 million appropriation. The agency said it wanted salary progressions to retain staff, four new vehicles for engineering and transmitter work, and $522,000 in reappropriated digitization funds to continue a project that has digitized more than half its library holdings for online access. The director also highlighted programming and outreach, including a new food-focused show, a music program, live coverage of the National Folk Festival, a Medgar Evers documentary now in national distribution, and expanded radio programming. He said MPB reaches nearly 1 million TV viewers annually, has strong radio and app usage, and continues to provide required weather, Silver Alert, and Amber Alert notifications. He also described a partnership with the Department of Education using e-glass technology to connect teachers to classrooms lacking instructors, saying the program is already serving multiple districts and drawing national interest.

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, to constantly have folks coming back.
• You know, to constantly have folks coming back.
• You know, to constantly have folks coming back.
• You know, to constantly have folks coming back.
• encourage them to consider coming back encourage them to consider coming back if<01:51:40.560>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, what I made a statement before, I said back then in 19—prior to 1973, going back to 1926 or whatever
• Now, what I made a statement before, I said back then in 19, prior to 1973, going back to, you can go
• He came back to us.
• So let's go back.
• Placing a QR code on the back of a registered sex offender's driver's license on the back of the license

Bills: HB91, HB123, HB167, HB255, HB264, HB321, HB884, HB955, HB967, HB968, HB969, HB978, HB985, HB994, HB1005, HB1104, HB1107, HB1109, SCR3

Keywords: criminal procedure, disclosure, criminal records, witness protection, trial rights, electronic monitoring, GPS ankle monitor, ankle bracelet, pretrial release, post-conviction supervision, bail monitoring, house arrest, corrections, criminal justice, law enforcement, prosecuting authority, court reporting, provider registration, LCLE, Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Criminal Justice

Summary: The committee first handled housekeeping by voluntarily deferring HB 123, HB 255, and HB 994 without objection. It then took up SCR 3 by Sen. Myers, which sought to delay implementation of a State Police rule change affecting criminal history background checks for certain health care workers and authorized agents until October 1, 2026, to avoid hiring delays. An amendment was adopted to remove language authorizing parish and local law enforcement to perform checks during the interim. After testimony from health care stakeholders who supported the delay, SCR 3 as amended was reported favorably. The committee next considered HB 978 by Rep. Lecombe, which as amended changed the bill from a town-of-Addis-specific exception to a broader adjustment in the population threshold for municipalities required to remit special costs to the district indigent defender fund, raising the threshold from under 5,000 to under 9,000 population. Supporters said the change would relieve small mayor’s courts and similar local courts of a $45-per-violation burden that was not well suited to those systems. The bill drew support from local officials and was reported favorably as amended. HB 967 by Rep. Moore, which would have expanded parole eligibility for certain long-serving offenders convicted before July 2, 1973 by removing language limiting eligibility to those who had pleaded guilty, generated extensive debate. Supporters argued the bill would only allow elderly prisoners to be considered by the parole board and would not guarantee release, while opponents, including district attorneys and the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, argued the 2022 law already covered those who pled guilty and that the bill would extend relief to people convicted at trial of serious violent crimes. After discussion, the motion to report HB 967 favorably failed on an 8-3 vote. The committee then heard HB 1107 by Rep. Melancon, a post-conviction procedure bill for capital cases involving claims of intellectual disability. The bill, as amended, raised the burden of proof to clear and convincing evidence, required expert reports and IQ information, applied Daubert-style reliability screening, and clarified that it only applies in death penalty cases. Supporters from the Attorney General’s office and district attorneys said the bill would create a clearer procedure and speed resolution of Atkins claims; opponents from disability-rights, criminal defense, and medical groups argued it would replace clinical standards with a rigid statutory definition, rely too heavily on a 75 IQ cutoff, and risk excluding people with genuine intellectual disabilities. Testimony continued through the end of the transcript, with no final committee vote shown on HB 1107.

Transcript Highlights:

• Or is it going back to the court? I know it's on appeal, so.
• So, okay, coming back down to this.
• it all stems back.
• And it was a problem back then. So I think if we... ...on campus, and it was a problem back then.
• And going back to that part, legal does not mean safe.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But now it's back to the same thing. We're back to contracts. Why have HDA?
• But now it's back to the same thing. We're back to contracts. Why have HDA?
• But now it's back to the same thing. We're back to contracts. Why have HDA?
• But now it's back to the same thing. We're back to contracts. Why have HDA?
• But now it's back to the same thing. We're back to contracts. Why have HDA?

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint House Committee on Tourism and Senate Committee on Economic Development and Tourism held an informational briefing on the Hawaii Tourism Authority’s interim action plans, current projects, contract updates, destination management action plans, and state auditor findings. Interim CEO Caroline Anderson described her role as temporary and said she was focused on identifying problems, gathering information, communicating with stakeholders, and implementing solutions. She said HTA is now operating as a typical state agency subject to state controls, but noted that HTA’s work often involves nontraditional programs that can create process errors. She also said she had directed staff to review the auditor’s findings on the destination management action plan process and that the review was posted publicly. A major topic was the search for a permanent CEO and the agency’s restructuring under SB 1571. HTA board chair Tata Po said he hoped to select a CEO within about four months, with three to six finalists expected in roughly two to two-and-a-half months, and said the job description would largely remain the same except for compensation and reporting changes under the new law. Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism representatives explained that HTA’s board is now advisory and does not approve the budget, while DBEDT retains budget authority. They also said HTA is working with the governor’s office and DBEDT on contract and budget transitions, including a possible shift to a calendar-year process so grantees and contractors have more certainty. Members pressed HTA on staffing, oversight, and accountability, especially around the destination stewardship team and the CNHA/Kilohana and HVCB contracts. HTA said the destination stewardship team supports destination management and product development, including workforce development, sports, and implementation of destination management action plans, and that staff provide direction to contractors rather than simply handing work over to them. Anderson said the stewardship team had 11 people and that the destination management side covered about 15 contracts, while the branding side had three managers overseeing nine contracts. She said the agency had 47 contracts overall and that the major contracts included CNHA/Kilohana and HVCB. Several members criticized HTA’s management history, questioned staffing qualifications and compensation, and expressed concern that the agency had lost public trust. No votes or formal actions were taken during the briefing.

Transcript Highlights:

• You see how this can go back and forth all the time.
• So it might be good to go back and look at that.
• So it might be good to go back and look at that.
• It might be good to go back and look at that.
• But I can bring it back up if and when I'm re-elected.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:05:25.640> Chair back and forth with it. Thank you. Chair back and forth with it.
• c> important<00:09:51.360> for That back background is important for That back background
• that we have their backs. that we have their backs.
• ,<00:43:44.080> we how many years we can look back, we how many years we can look back, we
• number, putting my HR hat on from back number, putting my HR hat on from back in<00:43:56.560>

Bills: HF4371, HF4317, HF2817, HF3496, HF4151, HF3826, HF4425, HF3990

Keywords: HF4371, Minnesota background checks, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, BCA, Office of the Legislative Auditor, Legislative Auditor, criminal history records, national criminal history record information, public safety, statutory amendment, section 299C.76, requesting agency, state audit, oversight, background screening, criminal records, county agencies, MNsure, Department of Revenue, Department of Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• um if it's a misdemeanor, it goes back um if it's a misdemeanor, it goes back to<00:04:36.880>
• I just wanted to go back.
• ,<00:36:10.480> there calculation and they come back, there calculation and they come back
• advantage of this uh, pay my way back advantage of this uh, pay my way back home?
• pay their way out and get back home. pay their way out and get back home.

Keywords: Judiciary, Division B - Room 409, 3 February, 2026; 9:00 A.M., 925, all

Summary: The committee took up several criminal justice and public safety bills. Senator Sparks explained SB 2416, which would let a law enforcement officer who tests positive on an initial drug screen obtain a more invasive follow-up test at the officer’s expense; if the second test is negative, the first result would be treated as a false positive and the officer’s certification would not be put at risk. The committee also heard SB 2228, which would reduce the waiting period for certain felony expungements from five years to three years, following a recommendation from the criminal justice task force. Members discussed how expungement remains discretionary with the court and does not change which offenses are eligible; the bill passed committee after a motion and voice vote. The committee then considered a committee substitute for SB 21108, a combined bail bill. Counsel said it would require suspension of a bail agent’s license when there is a civil judgment, exclude credit card transaction fees from authorized bail fees, clarify requirements for cash deposits in lieu of surety or property bonds, bar unsecured judicial release for bail-restricted offenses, and allow courts to assess service-of-process costs against bail agents in certain failure-to-appear cases. A reverse repealer was added, and the committee voted to pass the committee substitute. Finally, the committee heard SB 2114, which would expand state immigration enforcement efforts by allowing DPS to collect information on illegal aliens, codifying participation in the federal 287(g) program, and creating state penalties for certain unlawful entry and criminal conduct by undocumented persons, including enhanced penalties for violent or sex offenses. The sponsor and counsel said the bill is intended to work with federal law and includes exemptions for certain federal immigration statuses and a provision allowing some nonviolent defendants to agree to deportation in lieu of prosecution. Members raised concerns about enforcement, probable cause, and unintended consequences, but the sponsor said the bill would require proof of entry through the Gulf of Mexico for the new entry offense and that the measure would enhance cooperation with federal authorities.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then also that work is to provide connection back to those VA health care benefits that they've earned
• <00:04:25.560> those<00:04:25.759> VA<00:04:26.320> Healthcare connection back
• to those VA Healthcare connection back to those VA Healthcare benefits<00:04:27.759> that<00:
• resources<00:08:42.440> is<00:08:42.560> it<00:08:42.800> the connection back
• at 2013 one of our new look at back at 2013 one of our new Readiness<00:36:37.839> centers<00

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We yield back the remaining of our time.
• You know people cannot go back. They cannot go back. Believe me, they are fleeing persecution.
• And back before 9/11, if we wanted to go back and forth to Mexico, we'd have to go through checkpoints
• Twice deported defied our laws, came back into our country, back into Jacksonville, nowhere near the
• We do not back up.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, a moment of silence for the Parkland shooting victims, quorum call, and the Pledge of Allegiance. The Rules and Ethics Committee special order report for February 13, 2025 was adopted, setting the day’s special order calendar and debate times. The chamber then took up immigration-related special order items, beginning with Senate Memorial 6C, which urged the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to provide guidance and training for 287(g) agreements. Members debated federal immigration policy and state cooperation with DHS, and the memorial passed 85-27. The House next considered Senate Bill 4C, an immigration bill creating new state offenses related to unlawful entry and reentry into Florida and requiring a mandatory death sentence for an unauthorized alien convicted of a capital felony. Members questioned the bill’s constitutionality, including Supremacy Clause, due process, and Eighth Amendment concerns, and several speakers argued it would create separate classes of people and invite litigation. Multiple amendments were offered to narrow or expand exemptions, including protections for Venezuelans on TPS, certain Haitian TPS and humanitarian parole recipients, undocumented people brought to Florida as children working in critical professions, and a proposal to delay action pending court rulings; all of those amendments were rejected. The bill passed 85-29. The chamber then took up Senate Bill 2C, which would create a State Board of Immigration Enforcement led by the Governor and Cabinet, establish a local law enforcement immigration grant program and advisory council, repeal the undocumented-student fee waiver, and appropriate more than $300 million for immigration enforcement. The sponsor described it as supporting cooperation with federal immigration agencies and ending the in-state tuition incentive for undocumented students. Early questioning focused on the impact on “dreamers” and whether the bill would effectively raise their tuition costs; the sponsor said it removed the incentive of in-state tuition but did not bar attendance. The transcript cuts off during that exchange, before final action on SB 2C is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• If we go back to 1998 in the dynamics.
• that, back to you, commerce. that, back to you, commerce.
• wind and solar that were cut back. wind and solar that were cut back.
• I'm here to say that will fight back.
• that is where we where our roots go back that is where we where our roots go back to.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we would normally refer them back.
• Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the committee for comment.
• Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the committee.
• We want those funds to go back to social workers in the clinic.
• We want those funds to go back to transportation.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee met on April 22 and took up a special order of bills focused largely on prior authorization and utilization management in health care. The chair framed the discussion as part of a broader legislative effort to reduce delays and barriers to care, especially in behavioral health, chronic disease management, cancer treatment, and rehabilitation services. AB 384 by Assembly Member Connolly would prohibit prior authorization for inpatient mental health or substance use emergency admissions and related physician care; supporters said it would prevent dangerous delays in crisis care, while insurers and health plans warned about fraud, abuse, and ambiguity around residential treatment facilities. The bill was moved on a due pass as amended motion and passed the committee on a party-line style vote, with Republicans largely absent or not voting. The committee then heard AB 510 by Assembly Member Addis, which would require health plans, upon request, to provide a peer reviewer of the same or similar specialty when a treating provider appeals a prior authorization denial or modification. Supporters argued that specialty-matched review would make appeals fairer and more clinically informed; opponents said the requirement was too rigid and that timelines and electronic submission rules needed changes. After discussion about the need for timely, specialty-specific review, the bill was approved on a due pass as amended motion and placed on call. AB 539 by Assembly Member Schiavo would extend prior authorization approvals to one year or the duration of the physician’s prescribed treatment for chronic conditions; supporters cited repeated denials and treatment interruptions, while opponents raised concerns about overbreadth, fraud, and the need for shorter validity periods. The bill was also passed as amended and placed on call. The committee next considered AB 669 by Assembly Member Haney, which would bar concurrent and retrospective review for the first 28 days of medically necessary substance use disorder treatment and limit prior authorization for related outpatient medications. The bill was presented with a powerful personal story from Ryan Matlock’s mother about her son’s death after an insurer cut off treatment early; supporters said the measure would keep patients in care long enough to stabilize, while opponents argued it would reduce oversight and could allow lower-quality or non-evidence-based care. The bill was moved on a due pass as amended motion and placed on call. Finally, AB 512 by Assembly Member Harabedian would shorten prior authorization response times to 24 hours for urgent requests and 48 hours for non-urgent requests; supporters said delays can worsen outcomes, while opponents warned the timelines were unrealistic and could increase administrative burdens and safety issues. The bill was approved as amended and placed on call. AB 574 by Assembly Member Mark Gonzalez was then heard; it would allow up to 12 medically necessary physical therapy sessions for a new episode of care without prior authorization, with supporters emphasizing stroke and neurological recovery and opponents warning of reduced oversight and unnecessary care. The transcript ends during testimony on AB 574, before final action is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you look back at New Hampshire municipal reports dating back to the early 2000s, even prior to that
• If you look back at New Hampshire municipal reports dating back to the early 2000s, even prior to that
• education aid back to 2007208. education aid back to 2007208.
• Back up." You I I said, "Wait a minute. Back up."
• Way back there. >> Eight. Way back there. >> Oops. >> Oops. >> Oops.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The commission meeting focused on reviewing and correcting draft minutes and then working through a draft report on the cost of special education. Members made mostly clerical corrections, including clarifying references to Spalding, fixing acronyms such as LETRS, and cleaning up membership titles and appointee roles to match SB 57. The minutes were approved as amended, with some members abstaining because they were not present at the prior meeting. The chair also noted the commission’s deadline to complete findings and recommendations by July 1 and said the final report must be delivered to legislative leaders, the governor, the state librarian, and others. The main substantive discussion centered on the report’s findings about special education funding. Members agreed the report should emphasize that the commission was created to study the cost of special education and reduce reliance on local property taxes. One draft section described FY24 special education funding as coming from three primary state and federal sources totaling about $152 million, or roughly 15% of annual costs, with the remaining 85% paid by local school districts through property tax revenue, estimated at about $825 million. Members discussed adding historical or longitudinal data to show trends over time, and some suggested attaching charts or tables showing funding over the last 20 to 30 years. A second major topic was demographic data. The draft noted that statewide K-12 enrollment has declined since 2003 while the number and share of students with IEPs has increased. Members questioned whether the data compared like with like, especially given the growth of Education Freedom Accounts and charter school enrollment, and whether the figures included or excluded those students. Several members asked for clearer sourcing from the Department of Education and suggested keeping a list of unresolved questions, including the impact of the shift from ADMA to ADMR and the effect of the EFA program. The discussion ended with agreement to continue refining the report and to gather additional attachments and clarifications before finalizing recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Why haven't they gotten back are they? Why haven't they gotten back to<00:19:29.120> work?
• c> to<00:25:42.720> bus or even worse not go back to bus or even worse not go back to bus
• all the way back to 1976, right?
• then you might go back up to a 1% FBR. then you might go back up to a 1% FBR.
• <02:03:22.639> Your was back then. Your was back then.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• house under the back porch of the back house under the back porch of the back of<00:08:36.000>
• It's appears to us that curls back.
• He gave it back. He didn't I don't know. He gave it back. He didn't want<00:20:41.919> it.
• That had to go back, which it did do. It went back, and I agree with you.
• <01:56:38.480> Well,<01:56:38.880> I back? Is he back? The speaker? Well, I back?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on SB 27FN, which would change how improvements to dwellings over water are handled and align those projects more closely with the state building code. The bill was presented by Trisha Milo on behalf of Senator Lang, and attorney John Cronin explained that it arose from a specific New Hampshire Supreme Court case involving the Newcombs’ lakeside property, but that it could affect a small number of older waterfront homes statewide. He said the intent was to give the Department of Environmental Services (DES) limited waiver authority for improvements that do not harm water quality, plant life, or fish, while still requiring DES review and local permits. Committee members asked several questions about the scope of the bill, including whether it was tied to one case, how many properties might be affected, what counts as “living space,” and whether the language could allow larger decks or other expansions. Cronin said the bill was meant to be narrow, focused on access and egress and not on creating new living space, and that DES would still be able to deny unreasonable requests. He also described the Newcombs’ project as a rehabilitation of an older structure that had been approved locally and later challenged by DES, leading to the current dispute. Darlene Forst, the Wetlands Bureau administrator at DES, testified in opposition. She said the department was surprised the bill was being heard because it believed the Senate had sent it to interim study, and she argued the language was unclear and could have broader statewide effects than intended. Forst also said the underlying case was still active and should not be effectively re-litigated through this bill. No vote or final committee action was taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• When I'll turn it back to the dais, Mr. Zabur.
• I think that's a Come back and take a look at this.
• Hiding in the back for the expert. Hiding in the back for dramatic effect. I love it. Thank you.
• And then we see this come back.
• Bring it back. Let's go ahead and we have a All right. Bring it back.

Summary: The committee heard several bills, with SB 1350 by Senator McNerney presented first. The measure would expand California’s use of renewable hydrogen in the power sector by allowing renewable portfolio standard credit for power plants using green hydrogen, with supporters emphasizing grid reliability, clean-energy goals, in-state investment, and construction jobs. Support came from labor, clean-energy, municipal utility, and local government representatives; NRDC Action Fund withdrew opposition after amendments, while a few groups remained opposed or neutral. The committee later took a roll call and SB 1350 passed out on a due pass recommendation. The committee also heard SB 1180 by Senator Allen, which would set operational rules for the Plastic Pollution Mitigation Fund created under SB 54, including clearer eligible uses, transparency, technical assistance, and access for tribes and smaller community groups. Environmental justice, ocean, conservation, and local government groups strongly supported the bill, saying it would ensure the fund addresses plastic pollution’s public health and environmental harms. Industry and manufacturing groups opposed unless amended, arguing the bill should stay tightly tied to plastic waste reduction and not broaden into source-reduction policy. After quorum was established, the committee approved SB 1180 on a due pass recommendation to Appropriations. SB 1326 by Senator Wahab was then heard to strengthen tribal consultation and tribal cultural resource protections under CEQA by recognizing tribal registers and requiring feasible avoidance or mitigation measures when tribes identify resources. Tribal representatives and supporters said the bill would better protect sacred sites and tribal knowledge, while cities, counties, utilities, builders, and rural county groups opposed unless amended, citing implementation concerns, possible litigation, and uncertainty for infrastructure and housing projects. The committee voted the bill out on a due pass recommendation to Appropriations. Finally, SB 954 by Senator Blakespear was presented as a cleanup of last year’s SB 131 advanced-manufacturing CEQA exemption, narrowing eligible projects and adding guardrails such as setbacks, air-quality limits, tribal consultation, labor standards, and habitat protections. Environmental and labor groups supported the bill as a needed correction to an overly broad exemption, while business, manufacturing, housing, and local-government groups opposed, warning it could make the exemption unusable and slow investment. Members debated the balance between environmental protection and manufacturing competitiveness, and the committee voted SB 954 out on a due pass recommendation to the Labor and Employment Committee; the transcript then moved on to SB 1031 on compostable plastics, which was introduced but not acted on in the portion provided.