Transcript Highlights:

• gone, and Section 3, the repeal of the insurance mandate, is gone.
• Section 1 was an amendment that was...
• Section 1 was an amendment that was, or a modification that was specific to the insurance mandate.
• So with that being removed, those two sections were no longer necessary.
• So section 2 of the House version is now section 1 of the Senate version.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The conference committee on HB 1248 met to review differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill, which concerns the PERS pilot program and insurance mandate process. Rebecca Frickie, executive director of PERS, explained that the Senate version removed the House provisions repealing the insurance mandate process, kept the two-year PERS pilot intact, and preserved the requirement for a report at the end of the pilot while removing language that would have required PERS to submit a bill to expand coverage to the commercial market. Members discussed the bill’s cost-benefit analysis requirements. Frickie said the current law triggers a cost-benefit analysis at the start of the pilot and again when a bill is introduced to roll coverage out commercially, but the Senate draft would change that to only one analysis at the end of the pilot if a rollout bill is introduced. Legislative Council indicated that if the committee wants that simplified approach, additional conforming changes are needed elsewhere in the code. Senators also asked about the purpose of the initial analysis and whether it is used beyond being attached to the bill packet; Frickie said PERS relies primarily on its own actuary and was not aware of broader use. The committee discussed whether the revised process would still require legislative sponsorship for any future rollout, and Frickie confirmed that a legislator or other sponsor would need to introduce such a bill. Examples mentioned included insulin caps and breast exams as possible future pilot items. The committee agreed to request Legislative Council draft the needed language changes and planned to reconvene after receiving the updated draft; no final vote was taken and the meeting was adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our online encyclopedia, Minnipedia, has a section on the First Minnesota.
• Our online encyclopedia, Minnipedia, has a section on the First Minnesota.
• </c> insert section one, contracts. insert section one, contracts.
• Section<01:01:35.560><c> 16C.05,</c> Section 16C.05, Section 16C.05, subdivision<01:01:38.280><c> eight
• </c> under this section. under this section.

Bills: HF1458, HF2063, HF2164, HF1377, HF927, HF1059, HF1910, HF2232

Keywords: CPA, certified public accountant, public accounting, accountancy, licensure, license mobility, substantial equivalency, interstate practice, out-of-state accountant, NASBA, Uniform CPA Examination, board of accountancy, attest services, audit, tax preparation, financial advisory, consulting, accounting education, master's degree, bachelor's degree

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> within the application section at 277B5. within the application section at 277B5.
• and renumbering the original section five to read as section six.
• 31:56.000><c> to</c> and reing the original section five to and reing the original section five to read
• <00:31:56.399><c> as</c><00:31:56.640><c> section</c><00:31:57.120><c> six.
• On line nine, read as section six.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ...in sections 8202-3-5, 820314, 8204, 8206.
• Per Article 12, Section 2 of the Constitution, he says it's statutorily wrong.
• There are several different sections in that process.
• The question is, I see that we're writing a new section in this code.
• Representative Hawkins, just if you would clarify for me in Section 3...

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 626, which would require cities to collect county development impact fees for county facilities such as jails and courthouses rather than allowing cities to opt out. Representative Alfieri and county officials from Payette and Kootenai counties argued the bill was needed so growth would pay for county infrastructure and so one jurisdiction would not shift costs to others. The Idaho Association of Counties supported the bill, while the Association of Idaho Cities opposed it, saying cities are separate entities and should not be compelled to administer county fees. A virtual attorney for several cities argued the bill likely conflicts with the Idaho Constitution because county ordinances cannot be enforced inside city limits and suggested the issue should be handled through intergovernmental agreements instead. Committee members questioned why counties could not collect the fees themselves, whether the bill contained an enforcement mechanism, and whether the measure was constitutional. Supporters said cities had refused to collect fees in specific counties, causing lost revenue for jail and ambulance projects. Opponents said cities may lack the staff or revenue to administer the program and that the bill would force one local government to carry out another’s ordinance. After debate, a motion to hold the bill in committee failed, and the committee voted to send House Bill 626 to the floor with a do-pass recommendation. The committee then heard House Bill 749, a separate annexation-related measure. Representative Ehart described it as a collaborative fix developed with the Association of Idaho Cities to address costly annexation impacts on property owners, including the Hammonds, who testified that annexation had created large potential costs and uncertainty for their home. The committee voted to send House Bill 749 to the floor with a do-pass recommendation. Later, the committee took up House Bill 659, which would require local and county law enforcement agencies to apply for federal 287(g) agreements with ICE and to explain in writing if they cannot participate. Representative Hawkins said the bill was intended to increase cooperation with ICE and emphasized that it focused on jail-based enforcement and application for agreements, not street-level immigration policing. Sheriffs and other opponents argued the bill would impose costs, interfere with constitutional duties of elected sheriffs, and potentially require participation in future federal programs with unknown scope. Supporters said the public wanted stronger immigration enforcement and that federal reimbursement and training could offset costs. Testimony continued from both supporters and opponents, but no final committee action on HB 659 was reached in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, on Appendix. 2 Section 7, 493 million.
• section of the bill.
• 5 rather than Section 8 or Section 9.
• So on the far left column, you'll see the section number.
• Chair, with Higher Ed, that brings us to the end of Section 5.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, Section 11 actually just says that we can establish rules and penalties; Section 10 of Article
• Section 11 says that we can establish rules and have punishments.
• Raise a point of order on the Shaheen amendment on Article 3, Section 40.
• The first is under Article 16, Section 1, Oath of Office.
• Now, let’s go to the third section of the Constitution.

Bills: HB18, SB 54, SB 10, HR 76, HR 77, HR 78, HR 82, HR 83, HR 88, HR 89, HR 93, HR 94, HR 95, HR 98, HR 101, HR 102, HR 104, HR 105, HR 107, HR 108, HR 109, HR 110, HR 111, HR 112, HR 113, HR 123, HR 125, HR 79, HR 80, HR 81, HR 84, HR 85, HR 86, HR 87, HR 90, HR 91, HR 92, HR 96, HR 97, HR 100, HR 103, HR 106, HR 114, HR 115, HR 116, HR 117, HR 118, HR 119, HR 120, HR 121, HR 122, HR 124, HB 18, SB 54, SB 10, HB 8

Keywords: HB 18, Texas Legislature, quorum break, quorum-busting, legislative walkout, absent legislators, political contributions, campaign finance, political expenditures, legislative caucus, specific-purpose committee, Texas Ethics Commission, civil penalty, show cause order, district court, Fifteenth Court of Appeals, session fundraising, travel lodging food expenses, legislative session, compelled attendance

Transcript Highlights:

• Those are the ones that we have in front of us, Section 11 and Section 57.
• And that's under Section 57-15.35.
• I give you kind of a general overview in this section. The next section relates to committee...
• You kind of a general overview in this section. The next section relates to committee oversight.
• That's in this next section.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> version deletes a portion of section version deletes a portion of section section<00:28:46.799><
• </c> um effective date for these sections um effective date for these sections which<00:41:35.920><c>
• Section 52C to add the route of drug administration to be recorded. 2011 KR16737 amends Section 51D
• </c> sections to comply with KRS chapter 13A. sections to comply with KRS chapter 13A. 402520 402520
• ><c> restrictive</c> section one to define restrictive section one to define restrictive housing.<02:

Keywords: 0:00 – Meeting start/roll call 0:10 - Roll call/approval of minutes 1:43 - Cabinet for Health and Family Services (CHFS), Department for Medicaid Services 27:40 - Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control 55:54 - Board of Veterinary Examiners 1:33:15 - Testimony in support of 804 KAR 13:010E, 020E, 030E and 040E. 1:49:04 - Education Professional Standards Board 1:49:58 - Attorney General, Office of Regulatory Relief 1:52:18 - Kentucky Public Pensions Authority (KPPA) 1:54:28 - Board of Nursing 1:56:44 - Board of Occupational Therapy 1:57:37 - Board of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy 1:58:58 - Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources 1:59:50 - Economic Development Finance Authority 2:01:34 - Department of Corrections 2:02:37 - Department of Juvenile Justice 2:04:02 - Department for Employment Services, Unemployment Insurance 2:04:57 - Cabinet for Health and Family Services (CHFS), Department for Public Health, 958, all

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes and then took up Department for Medicaid Services regulations 907 KAR 23:010 and related rules. DMS explained that one regulation would establish a beneficiary advisory council and another would remove language barring coverage of GLP-1 drugs for obesity-related use. The department said coverage would still be limited by prior authorization and clinical criteria, with use tied to underlying chronic conditions such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease, and that the pharmacy and therapeutics committee would help set the detailed standards. Members discussed the potential health benefits, but several raised concerns about cost, timing, and whether the legislature and the Medicaid Oversight and Advisory Board should review the policy first. DMS said the drugs are already on the formulary, that current Medicaid users with diabetes are already covered, and that the fiscal impact was estimated using current utilization, rebates, and expected savings; the department also said it would only cover the drugs if subject to rebates. The committee then voted 5-1 to find 907 KAR 23:010 deficient. The committee next considered several emergency regulations from the Public Protection Cabinet’s Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control implementing SB 100. The rules covered tobacco, nicotine, and vapor product licensing, including the application form, denial standards, and transitional licensing. ABC counsel said the department had received about 5,500 applications and issued nearly 5,000 licenses, with additional provisional licenses issued to avoid interruption in sales after the law’s effective date. He said some applications remained pending because inspections and photographs revealed possible unauthorized nicotine vapor products, and the department was seeking documentation before approval. A staff amendment was adopted without objection before the ABC presentation continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• would be section six.
• </c> of amendment in sections 1, 2, and 3. of amendment in sections 1, 2, and 3.
• </c> substituted by Senator Watson on section substituted by Senator Watson on section 4<00:54:12.720
• </c><00:55:11.800><c> 1</c> the entire bill as amended sections 1 the entire bill as amended sections
• </c> the proposal of amendment in section the proposal of amendment in section six. six. six.

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , but it should have as a new section, but it should have replaced<00:57:39.200><c> section</c><00:57
• </c> to make that change uh replace section to make that change uh replace section 19.<00:57:52.640><
• </c> where we're talking about, uh sections where we're talking about, uh sections 17<02:05:07.199><c
• </c> whatever sections they want to to LBA. whatever sections they want to to LBA.
• </c> we already got this section covered. we already got this section covered.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In the Recovery Act section of this legislation.
• Uh, the first section, Section A, clarifies that microgrids can operate and provide electricity to a
• Furthermore, we have Section 3 that state in this bill.
• Our under section 3. And then under the amendments.
• The next section I, I have questions or maybe some clarification if you can is a section 4 with the,

Transcript Highlights:

• Delete the proposed criminal penalties in proposed Section 1507 of the Elections Code.
• Delete Section 5 of the bill, which proposed to add Section 15104.5 to the Elections Code.
• Clarify that Sections 1553 and 19230 of the Elections Code do not prohibit agreements between elections
• And the word 'uniformed' will be brought back into Sections 18544 and 18544.
• Will be brought back into Sections 18544 and 18545 of the Elections Code.

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met on May 6, 2026, with a quorum present and heard one bill, SB 73. The author described the measure as a response to perceived threats to California elections, including restrictions on armed or non-uniformed personnel at polling places, protections for ballots and voting equipment, and limits on law enforcement access to election materials without a court order. The chair reviewed a set of agreed amendments, including removing a section conflicting with AB 1664, deleting proposed criminal penalties, clarifying the role of the Attorney General and Secretary of State, and refining language on signature challenges, law enforcement support, and certified voting technology. Supporters, including AAPI Force, CHIRLA, the League of Women Voters of California, and Common Cause, argued the bill would protect voters from intimidation and preserve election integrity. Opponents from CALA argued the bill was unnecessary, would hinder legitimate investigations, and reflected distrust of law enforcement and federal oversight. Committee discussion focused heavily on whether the bill was responding to real-world threats and on the ballot seizure in Riverside County. Members questioned how the measure would affect signature challenges, chain of custody, and investigations into possible fraud. The author and supporters said ballots should remain in election officials’ custody and that federal or local agents should not be able to interfere with election materials or intimidate voters. The chair and other members also discussed the urgency clause and the need to move the bill quickly despite the proximity of the June election. The committee voted to do pass and re-refer SB 73 to the Committee on Public Safety. The roll call initially showed the bill passing 5-1, then after the absent member arrived, the final vote was 6-2, and the bill was reported out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• line 105, by inserting the following language Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection a of this section
• wrong, but I'm noticing that from what I found, Section 140 was repealed in.
• A section that has been repealed.
• The provisions of this section shall be in addition to the provisions of Section 140 of Title 61 of the
• So this section is added to.

Bills: HB3002, HB3416, HB3417, HB3418, HB3419, HB3463, HB3919, HB3985, HB4303

Keywords: counties, county officers, education, training, sunset law, county purchasing, procurement practices, budget management, public accountability, emergency procurement, reverse auction, bidding process, competitive bidding, public procurement, city council regulations, public works, bidding procedures, construction contracts, transparency, public trust

Transcript Highlights:

• It just did it in a place other than the definition section.
• ,</c><00:13:44.560><c> taking</c><00:13:44.880><c> out</c><00:13:45.120><c> the</c> definition section
• , taking out the definition section, taking out the private<00:13:45.839><c> right</c><00:13:46.079><
• </c><00:13:49.120><c> 230</c><00:13:49.600><c> of</c> [clears throat] of using section 230 of [clears
• throat] of using section 230 of the<00:13:49.920><c> Communications</c><00:13:50.560><c> Decency</c>

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And somehow there was an error in the bill that included, uh, there's two sections of code that deal
• signed and this bill will include the whole section and basically what we're doing is we're exempting
• of code that deal with sections of code that deal with commercial<00:10:20.480><c> seafood</c><00:10
• was included in the only one section was included in the bill<00:10:28.240><c> that</c><00:10:28.399
• </c><00:10:31.200><c> and</c> will include the whole section and will include the whole section and basically

Bills: HB38, HB39, HB181, HB38, HB39, HB181

Keywords: district attorneys, prosecutorial function, law enforcement, criminal procedure, legal advice, paternity, putative father registry, adoption, legal rights, parental rights, HB181, Alabama Building Renovation Finance Authority, bond authorization, state bonds, capital improvements, public buildings, State Capitol, renovation finance, public office facilities, infrastructure financing

Transcript Highlights:

• Below are the changes to each section of the bill listed in sequential order.
• Section 2 makes no change.
• Section 3 removes the requirement that hearing officers also take this training, given that they are
• The substitute amends section 11.059E of the Education code.
• Also, the substitute adds the repeal of Section 11.059F and G of the Education code.

Bills: HB178

Keywords: efficiency audit, political subdivision, tax rate, fiscal management, government accountability

Transcript Highlights:

• But currently so it's in three sections. The first two sections.
• So in this bill, in one of those sections that says repeal this section on page 19, there's a section
• It is section 1.011A I'm sorry, it's section 39.023A(16) in current law of the Texas Education Code which
• sections of current law.
• That's why I keep referencing you back to that section of the code.

Bills: HB8, HB12, SB 3, HJR1, SB 11, SB 16, SB 14

Keywords: HB 8, Texas public school accountability, school accountability, public school transparency, STAAR, state assessments, instructionally supportive assessment program, Student Success Tool, Texas Education Agency, TEA, accountability ratings, A-F ratings, through-year assessment, benchmark testing, norm-referenced assessment, college career military readiness, CCMR, local accountability plan, school district performance, campus turnaround

Transcript Highlights:

• Section four cancels $100,000 from the Minnesota Forward Fund account, and then section five transfers
• Section four cancels $100,000 2028.
• Those are in sections 9 and 20.
• Those are in sections 9 and 20.
• Those are in sections 9 and 20.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• He explained that it repeals three outdated sections of Idaho Code.
• Lakey said Idaho Code 23-103 is a lingering code section from the 1939 Prohibition era.
• Committee, this is House Bill 736, which amends Idaho Code Section 34-903.
• This is House Bill 736, which amends Idaho Code Section 34-903.
• And you can see the modifications of that code section are fairly minimal.

Summary: The Senate State Affairs Committee heard several bill introductions and resolutions focused on budget savings, transparency, election rules, and cleanup of outdated code. Senator Cook presented RS-33715, which would reduce executive branch elected officials’ salaries by 5% in calendar year 2027, and RS-33735, which would print a proposal to study transfer-on-death deeds; both RS requests were introduced. The committee also heard House Bill 575, which would require asset forfeiture reports to be sent to the State Controller and published on Transparent Idaho; sponsors said it would not change forfeiture authority, only improve transparency. A prosecutor testified in support, and the bill was sent to the floor with a do-pass recommendation. House Bills 798 and 799, both code cleanup measures repealing outdated statutes, also advanced unanimously. The committee then considered HCR 33, which would create an interim committee to study sextortion, its prevalence, prevention, and impact on minors. Senator Lakey and Representative Greene described the crime as technology-driven, harmful to youth, and often difficult to prosecute because offenders may be overseas; the resolution was sent to the floor with a do-pass recommendation. House Bill 810, which would require legislative candidates to have lived in their district for 120 nights in the year before filing, drew questions about military, religious mission, and redistricting exceptions; after discussion, the committee voted to send it to the 14th order for possible amendment rather than directly to the floor. The committee also advanced HCR 27, honoring Morrison-Knudsen employees and Idahoans who served and died at Wake Island during World War II, after hearing about civilian sacrifice and wartime losses. House Bill 736, which lowers the threshold for ballot name rotation from political entities with 100,000 registered voters to those with 25,000, was described as a way to reduce ballot-order bias and was sent to the floor with a do-pass recommendation. Finally, House Bill 793, which reallocates beer tax revenue to help fund Alcohol Beverage Control and law enforcement rather than the permanent building fund, passed the committee on a voice vote and was sent to the floor with a do-pass recommendation before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• SB 682, Allen, PFS prohibitions, do pass with author's amendments to, among other things, strike Section
• SB 640, Cabaldon, college emissions, do pass with committee amendments to remove Section 3, out with
• SB 567, Limón, gravity-based energy storage wells, do pass with author's amendments to strike Section
• two and three from the bill out with republicans Do pass with author's amendments to strike Sections
• SB 71, Wiener, CEQA exemption for transit projects, do pass with author's amendments to strike Section

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee held its August 29, 2025 suspense hearing on Senate bills, with the chair emphasizing the state’s ongoing budget constraints and the need to make difficult choices among 261 bills on the suspense file. After establishing a quorum, the committee began taking action bill by bill, with many measures receiving do pass or do pass with amendments recommendations, while others were held in committee or designated as two-year bills. The chair noted the agenda was organized alphabetically by author and that results would be posted later on the committee website. The hearing covered a wide range of topics, including insurance and claims data, wildfire relief and prevention, water planning, energy and utility regulation, housing and land use, health care, labor and employment, criminal justice, education, environmental policy, and election-related measures. Several bills were amended before passage, often to narrow scope, remove sections, adjust definitions, delay implementation, or clarify funding and enforcement provisions. Some notable actions included moving bills on AI regulation, transit-oriented housing, paid family leave, wildfire mapping, chemical hair relaxers, and pharmacy benefit managers, while other bills on subjects such as controlled substances, high-speed rail, and certain education or housing proposals were held. The committee also took formal roll-call votes on selected bills, with some passing on A roll calls and others on B roll calls; a number of measures were advanced with Republicans not voting. One highlighted vote was SB 79 by Senator Wiener, which passed after amendments and a recorded roll call. At the end of the hearing, the committee reported that 190 bills were moved to the Assembly Floor, either as do pass or do pass with amendments, concluding the suspense hearing for the session.