Transcript Highlights:

• DCC's regulations prohibit a picture of the actual product if it's an edible DCC's regulations prohibit
• DCC regulations prohibit labeling that is attractive to children, but the regulations do not prohibit
• Current regulations broadly pertain to edibles, and those regulations limit products in general to 100
• Regulators, legislators, and the licensed industry share that commitment.
• You've had the ability for regulators to take action.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit Committee heard an audit on the Department of Cannabis Control’s oversight of cannabis packaging and labeling, focused on whether products are attractive to children. The auditor said the department’s rules are often vague, enforcement is inconsistent, and licensees are left to interpret standards without prior review. In a review of 80 packaging cases, the audit team disagreed with the department’s conclusions in 13 instances, and the report highlighted examples involving cartoon imagery, colorful fonts, candy-like references, flavor names, and cannabis beverages that resembled ordinary drinks. The auditor recommended clearer statutory definitions, possible consideration of plain packaging or pre-approval models like Oregon’s, better internal guidance, and stronger tracking and escalation for repeat violators. Committee members and Assembly Member Irwin emphasized the rise in poison control calls involving children under five since legalization and argued that legal-market packaging can contribute to accidental ingestion, especially when products resemble candy or drinks. Several members pressed the department on why items such as root beer, strawberry lemonade, and cherry pie strain names should be allowed if they may appeal to children. The Department of Cannabis Control responded that it has already centralized label review, added staff and technology tools, improved compliance-history tracking, and is using progressive discipline tools such as notices to comply, citations, embargoes, abatements, and license actions. The department also argued that the illicit cannabis and intoxicating hemp markets are major drivers of youth exposure and that enforcement resources must be balanced across those markets. Public health witness Dr. Lynn Silver urged stronger restrictions, including plain packaging, bans on added flavors and child-appealing imagery, lower THC limits for edibles and beverages, and a dedicated pre-market review process. Industry representatives from the California Cannabis Industry Association and the California Cannabis Operators Association agreed that youth protections are essential, but argued that clearer, objective standards are needed so compliant businesses can know the rules and enforcement can be consistent. They said most licensed products are already compliant, that the most blatant youth-targeted packaging is concentrated in the illicit market, and that the Legislature should refine definitions and guidance rather than rely on subjective case-by-case judgments. No formal vote or bill action was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• DCC's regulations prohibit a picture of the actual product if it's an edible, DCC's regulations prohibit
• DCC regulations prohibit labeling that is attractive to children, but the regulations do not prohibit
• Current regulations broadly pertain to edibles, and those regulations limit products in general to 100
• Enforcing existing regulations prohibiting products attractive to children, and strengthening those regulations
• You've had the ability for regulators to take action.

Transcript Highlights:

• Tether gets to decide what's in this regulation and what isn't.
• Bank regulators have this authority. stablecoin regulators would not, and I think that's a mistake.
• It's not a framework to regulate the secondary market.
• to right-size regulations for community banks.
• ' risk profiles when formulating regulations.

Bills: SB875

Committee: Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee

Keywords: banking regulation, federal agencies, reputational risk, financial services, supervision, FIRM Act, bank supervision, depository institutions, federal banking agencies, FDIC, OCC, Federal Reserve, NCUA, CFPB, credit unions, Operation Choke Point, financial discrimination, safety and soundness, supervisory guidance, examination manual

Summary: This meeting focused on the markup of the Genius Act and the FIRM Act, two significant pieces of legislation addressing stablecoin regulation and the financial industry's regulatory framework. The Chairman noted the importance of providing clarity to the digital asset community and protecting American consumers, while also promoting innovation and competition within the financial sector. Members of both parties expressed varying viewpoints, with some highlighting concerns related to national security and the potential risks associated with stablecoins.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, passing regulations or framework for regulations simply applies to regulations.
• , regulation, regulation, >> right?
• . regulations. regulations.
• </c> that we're trying to regulate. that we're trying to regulate.
• . regulations. regulations.

Transcript Highlights:

• The USDA actually mirrored our regulations.
• First, I want to make it clear that we support regulation.
• We regulate alcohol. We regulate other stuff that we have.
• I appreciate these regulations. And no, I'm sober.
• Your regulations are minimal, almost none. Your regulations are minimal, almost none.

Committee: Senate Fiscal Policy

Summary: The Committee on Fiscal Policy considered several bills and reported all of them favorably. SB 70-24, on state planning and budgeting, was presented as a modernization of the long-range planning program to simplify reporting, remove outdated measures, and focus on key data points and outcomes; it passed without opposition. CS/SB 166, on administrative efficiency in public schools, made broad changes to school accountability and operations, including lowering the stakes of certain student assessments, giving districts more flexibility on evaluations, contracts, certification, calendars, facilities, and VPK oversight. Two amendments were adopted: one clarifying that Title I funds may be used for STEM services, and another refining how advanced degrees count on salary schedules. The bill passed favorably after testimony both supporting and opposing the changes, with supporters emphasizing flexibility and opponents raising concerns about teacher evaluation and instructional practice. CS/SB 164, on vessel accountability, was described as a measure to address derelict and at-risk vessels by improving owner identification, creating a free long-term anchoring permit program, increasing penalties, and authorizing grants for local governments in the FWC prevention program. It received support from marine industry groups and was reported favorably. CS/SB 472, on education and correctional facilities for licensed professions, would allow inmates to receive credit toward licensure for qualifying coursework; a strike-all amendment added coordination with DBPR and professional boards. The bill drew support from criminal justice, business, and policy groups and passed unanimously. The committee spent the most time on CS/SB 438, on food and hemp products. Senator Burton and co-sponsor Senator Davis argued the bill was needed to regulate intoxicating hemp products, restrict child-appealing packaging and signage, ban synthetic hemp products, cap THC content in edibles and beverages, and require hemp beverages to be sold through alcohol-style distribution channels. Supporters, including alcohol distributors and some public safety advocates, said the bill would improve testing, labeling, and consumer protection. Opponents, including hemp retailers, farmers, and libertarian advocates, argued it would harm small businesses, reduce consumer choice, and push sales to the black market. After extensive debate, the bill was reported favorably. At the end of the meeting, senators requested to be recorded as voting in the affirmative on tab five, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• And those we do regulate.
• and state regulations.
• So we do regulate them. And about half of assisted livings within CCRCs are regulated by age.
• or rest home regulations.
• or rest home regulations.

Summary: The Special Commission on Continuing Care Retirement Communities met for its third meeting, focused on regulations, oversight, and enforcement. Staff and agency presenters reviewed the current framework: the Executive Office of Aging and Independence explained that assisted living regulations generally do not apply to CCRCs unless an assisted living component markets itself separately, and that CCRCs must submit marketing materials, contracts, and disclosure statements for public posting. The Attorney General’s office described Chapter 93A consumer protection standards and noted it is working on draft assisted living-specific regulations. DPH outlined its oversight of licensed nursing facilities associated with some CCRCs, including routine surveys, complaint investigations, and enforcement tools such as admissions freezes, fines, receivership, and license actions, along with federal CMS sanctions for certified facilities. Commission members and presenters then discussed gaps and ambiguities in how CCRCs are defined and regulated, especially whether communities without on-site skilled nursing should still be treated as CCRCs, how assisted living-like services within CCRCs are classified, and whether residents have enough clarity about the services they are buying. A major theme was disclosure: members raised concerns about entrance fees, refund timing and conditions, whether skilled nursing is on-site or provided by contract, and how residents can compare communities. Several participants suggested more standardized disclosure and possibly broader consumer protection rules, while others cautioned that overly rigid requirements could affect community finances and development. The commission also explored enforcement and resident protections. Some members argued that independent living residents are already covered by landlord-tenant law and that existing complaint systems and community education may be sufficient, while others said residents in supported or assisted settings within CCRCs should have clearer access to ombudsman services and oversight. The discussion turned to closure and ownership transfer, with members citing recent national examples of sales and bankruptcies that changed resident terms. DPH explained its closure process for licensed nursing facilities, and members noted that Chapter 197 of 2024 adds oversight for facility transfers and financial disclosures. The meeting ended with logistics for the next session at Brookhaven at Lexington on June 2, a public hearing on June 16, and a request to circulate the hearing notice broadly to residents and stakeholder organizations.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'm proposing that the second bill be a regulation.
• We'd have the second bill, which would be the regulation.
• for regulations?
• They cite the, you know, kind of a national act for regulation.
• Do we know enough to be able to adequately regulate it properly?

Summary: The working group met for a legislative-only discussion on kratom ahead of a special session, with members agreeing to keep remarks brief and noting a public open house and expert testimony would follow the next week. Staff provided an overview of kratom regulation, describing the substance, its psychoactive effects, reported health risks, federal DEA action on 7-OH, state approaches, and North Dakota’s recent executive action and special session call. Legislators then debated whether the state should prohibit kratom, regulate it, or distinguish between natural kratom and synthetic or concentrated 7-OH products. Several members cited extensive testimony from the 2025 session, including House Bill 1101, which would have scheduled kratom as a Schedule I substance and failed in the House, and House Bill 1566, which evolved into a study. Supporters of regulation emphasized testimony from people who said natural kratom helped with chronic pain or function, while others stressed concerns about addiction, adulterated products, youth access, infant withdrawal, and deaths linked to kratom or 7-OH. Members also discussed enforcement and public health issues, including whether the Good Samaritan law should be updated, how law enforcement would respond under the executive order, and whether withdrawal could drive people toward harder drugs. One member urged a temporary approach until the 2027 session, while others argued the short special session could still address a narrow ban on 7-OH and tighter controls on natural kratom. No votes were taken, and the meeting ended with plans for additional testimony and further legislative hearings during the special session.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's no regulation at all.
• by this, regulated by the state.
• by this, regulated by the state.
• I mean, if we're going to just regulate, can we have the regulations without the three-tier?
• We're going to have regulations to regulate it. Safety inspections.

Committees: House Judiciary , House Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence

Transcript Highlights:

• And uh it's regulated they're going to. And uh it's regulated by<00:10:32.040><c> states.
• not regulated.
• What are we going to regulate? What aren't we going to regulate?
• What are we going to regulate?
• What aren't we going to regulate? What aren't we going to regulate?

Committee: Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection

Transcript Highlights:

• Please call the next regulation.
• Please call the next regulation.
• Please call the next regulation.
• Please call the next regulation.
• Please call the next regulation.

Summary: The subcommittee met with a quorum present, approved the minutes without objection, and then reviewed a series of administrative regulations from multiple agencies. Most of the regulations received staff-suggested amendments and were approved without objection, including fish and wildlife rules on fishing limits and deer hunting on local government property, veterinary board changes to responsible party and veterinary manager requirements, election procedures for safe-at-home voters, attorney general regulatory relief rules, emergency gasoline tax pricing, public pensions updates, controller fraud-prevention policies, physical therapy licensure and English proficiency standards, school nutrition and fee-waiver rules, public health conference procedures, and Medicaid waiver regulations. Several agencies briefly identified themselves and answered procedural questions, but most items drew no substantive opposition. The Board of Veterinary Examiners regulation included an agency amendment that removed a proposed limit on the number of facilities a veterinary manager could oversee. The Department of Education regulations updated fee waiver and meal program procedures, while the Department of Public Health regulation clarified notification and conference-request procedures. The Department of Revenue and Kentucky Public Pensions Authority items were largely technical or conforming changes, including a special-needs trust definition added for consistency with Senate Bill 85. The most extensive discussion involved the Department for Medicaid Services’ 1915C child waiver regulations. Kentucky Protection and Advocacy testified in opposition to the waiver’s lack of participant-directed services, arguing that consumer-driven services such as respite and community living support are required and especially important in rural areas and for higher-acuity children. Cabinet representatives responded that the waiver is intended to provide wraparound services to keep children in homes and communities, that it has CMS approval, and that the program is limited to 100 slots with about 21 participants already enrolled. Members did not move a deficiency motion, and the chair indicated the regulations would continue through the process. The meeting adjourned after setting the next meeting for Tuesday, August 11 at 1:00 p.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• or to overturn all of the regulations. ...all of the regulations or to overturn all of the regulations
• are regulations everything from these are regulations that<05:41:43.920><c> were</c><05:41:44.120><c
• regulation after Regulation after regulation after regulation<06:00:50.000><c> is</c><06:00:50.200><
• Uh, excuse me—regulation. These aren’t legislation; these are regulations.
• As a former energy regulator, I know the value of smart, efficient regulation.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> outside packaging and it has Regulators outside packaging and it has Regulators um<00:17:26.000>
• </c> are also regulations on these delta8 are also regulations on these delta8 products<00:18:17.640>
• </c> but I think legalization and regulation but I think legalization and regulation is<00:22:10.440>
• </c><00:40:31.760><c> and</c> three months to write regulations and three months to write regulations
• Thank you very much. regulations making sure people don't go regulations making sure people don't go

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:54:17.240><c> The</c> before adopting new regulations? The before adopting new regulations?
• </c><00:59:28.560><c> were</c> government agency regulations were government agency regulations were
• </c><00:59:33.080><c> out</c> they just threw the regulations out they just threw the regulations out
• It's about this is about no regulation. It's about smart<01:21:05.120><c> regulation.
• </c> smart regulation. smart regulation.

Bills: SF856 , HF4482 , HF3672 , HF1234 , HF4591 , HF3554 , HF936

Committee: House State Government Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• As a result of litigation, DPR was compelled to adopt regulations, but the regulations were designed
• Regulated entities, if you guys can come on up. Welcome.
• of the state laws and regulations.
• . and to enforce the standards within the laws and regulations.
• I think it's critical. and local regulators and many other stakeholders.

Summary: The joint Assembly and Senate hearing examined whether California’s pesticide program is meeting its public-protection goals, with opening remarks from committee chairs emphasizing the state’s large pesticide use, the need to transition toward sustainable pest management, and ongoing oversight including a state audit of DPR and county agricultural commissioner enforcement. The hearing also referenced recent concerns in Ladera Ranch about childhood cancer cases and the need for transparent investigation and community access to information. Panel one focused on human health and the regulatory framework. Dr. Anna Maria Mora described long-running CHAMACOS research showing widespread pesticide exposure in farmworker families, links to neurodevelopmental, respiratory, liver, and cardiometabolic harms, and greater impacts on children facing social adversity. She urged biomonitoring, better linkage of exposure data to health outcomes, regulation of chemical classes and mixtures, stronger buffers around homes and schools, and more community-based research. Professor Tim Malloy explained California’s two-tier system of DPR registration and county permitting, said the state’s program is strong but falls short on cumulative exposure analysis and alternatives assessment, and argued that DPR and counties need better tools, training, and funding to implement legally required protections. Committee members asked about biomonitoring, class-based regulation, and how to make pesticide data more usable for the public. Panel two brought testimony from environmental justice and farmworker advocates, who argued that California remains behind other jurisdictions by allowing highly hazardous pesticides, including 1,3-dichloropropene and paraquat, and by relying on a funding structure tied to pesticide sales. Witnesses said DPR often moves too slowly on reevaluations, rarely assesses combined exposures, and does not adequately account for health, environmental, and social costs or conflicts of interest involving pest control advisors. They also described inconsistent county-level implementation, weak outreach, and confusion over whether DPR or county agricultural commissioners are responsible for enforcement, and urged faster phaseouts, tiered fees, stronger local protections, and clearer accountability. Panel three represented regulated entities and agricultural stakeholders, who supported the goals of safer pest management but stressed that California’s registration process must be more predictable, transparent, and timely. They said AB 2113’s staffing and timeline reforms were important, but backlog and delays still hinder access to newer, lower-risk products and can hurt both consumer and agricultural uses. Agricultural witnesses also emphasized the need to invest more in pest prevention, invasive species detection, extension support, farmer training, and practical incentives for sustainable pest management. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, with members pressing witnesses on timelines, implementation, funding, and the division of responsibility between DPR and county agencies.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you haven't noticed, this bill is regulation. Like, it's regular, it's copious regulation.
• So I think it's always incumbent on the person being regulated to adhere to the regulator.
• Should we regulate that? Yeah.
• But, you know, there is regulation by the license, the license giver, the state, for those regulated
• But the idea that we should regulate and go from an unregulated, no-rules market to a regulated market

Summary: The House convened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then approved the House Journal by roll call vote, 115-6. Members then used points of personal privilege to honor Redd Foxx for Black History Month and to remember former Mayor Frank Klipsch, followed by the introduction of a first-grade special guest page for the day. The chamber also received first readings of three bills on mental health efforts in public schools, public labor organizations, and state contracts with certain telecommunications companies, along with committee reports recommending passage of several bills. The House then debated and passed several measures. A large vehicle-inspection bill, House Committee Substitute for House Bills 1838, 1692, 1695, 1983, 2036, 2662, and 2743, drew extended debate over whether inspections improve safety or impose unnecessary costs; it passed 104-43. House Bill 1917, a Jefferson County water district bill aimed at removing a local obstacle to a long-planned development, passed 148-2. House Bill 261, as amended, was approved 109-21 to require Missouri schools and universities to adopt nondiscriminatory policies protecting Jewish students from antisemitic harassment, using the IHRA definition as a guide while stating it would not limit First Amendment rights. Members also passed House Committee Substitute for House Bill 2384, 92-61, which would limit local energy-code mandates and reduce housing construction costs, despite objections that it would preempt local control and roll back newer codes. The chamber then moved into perfection and took up House Committee Substitute for House Bill 2989, a major gaming-regulation bill intended to legalize and regulate video lottery terminals and crack down on illegal machines. Multiple amendments were adopted, including a $250-per-terminal fee dedicated to developmental disability services, local opt-out and operating-hour provisions, a shorter grace period for existing machines, property-tax language, a 21-and-over restricted area requirement, a larger warning label, and a historical funding provision for the steamboat Arabia. Debate continued on the bill and its amendments, with supporters emphasizing regulation, local control, and new revenue, and opponents warning about gambling expansion, enforcement problems, and social harms.

Transcript Highlights:

• First, I want to make it clear that we support regulation.
• We would be regulated, too.
• Other states have implemented bounced regulations.
• We regulate alcohol, we regulate and the stuff that we have.
• That is not you're regulations.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we firmly believe that regulation needs to happen for this, and that there is... ...that regulation
• Regulates things as 10 milligrams and under.
• I mean, if we're going to just regulate, can we have the regulations without the three-tier?
• We're going to have regulations to regulate it. It's going to safety inspections.
• And that's why the language I suggested is not a full-blown solution to the... regulations to regulate

Committee: House Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence

Summary: The Judiciary Committee first met in executive session and took up House Bill 2699, which concerns offenses involving the judiciary. The committee adopted a House Committee substitute and two amendments: one adding circuit clerks, deputy circuit clerks, court administrators, division clerks, and municipal clerks, and another adding court reporters who are active participants in courtroom activities. The substitute bill was then voted do pass by a roll call of six ayes, two noes, and two present; one member stated a personal interest and voted present. The committee then held a public hearing on House Bill 2848, the so-called “mask intimidation” bill sponsored by Representative Dolan. The bill would create a Class C misdemeanor for intentionally harassing, intimidating, or threatening another person while concealing one’s identity with a mask or similar covering, with exceptions for legitimate uses such as medical, religious, holiday, and First Amendment-related activity. Supporters, including the Anti-Defamation League, said the bill would address masked intimidation by extremist groups and protect targeted communities; there was no opposition testimony. A public hearing followed on House Bill 2765, sponsored by Representative Justice, which would regulate intoxicating hemp beverages through a framework modeled on alcohol’s three-tier system. The bill would set licensing, testing, labeling, packaging, age-21 sales restrictions, and THC limits, and assign oversight to the Department of Health and Senior Services and the Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control. Support came from the Missouri Beer Wholesalers Association, Hemp Beverage Alliance, Missouri Petroleum and Convenience Association, Torch Drinks, Total Wine, and others, who argued the bill would create needed guardrails, keep products away from minors, and preserve a regulated retail market; some witnesses also urged broader regulation of other hemp-derived products. There was no opposition testimony, and the committee concluded its hearing without taking final action on HB 2765.

Transcript Highlights:

• Please call the first regulation. Please call the first regulation.
• </c> regulation. Thank you. regulation. Thank you.
• regulation? regulation?
• </c> regulation. Thank you. Thank you all. regulation. Thank you. Thank you all.
• Next regulation, please.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the minutes, and then took up several administrative regulations. The first was an Office of the Attorney General regulation creating an online submission process for an annual certification report to replace prior quarterly notarized certification forms; there were no amendments or questions. The main discussion centered on Personnel Cabinet regulations 101 KAR 2:034, 2:102, 3:015, and 3:045, which include staff-suggested technical amendments and address state employee compensation and leave. The compensation provisions clarify salary and rehiring/demotion rules, increase critical position premiums from one to three, and update weekend premium and ACE award practices. The leave provisions would provide up to six weeks of paid leave per 10-year interval for birth, adoption, foster placement, or a serious health condition, and allow one paid adverse-weather day per year with supervisor approval. Staff explained that annual and sick leave already accrue and roll over, and that the new six-week benefit was intended as an additional enhancement tied to the 10-year and 20-year sick-leave milestones.

Transcript Highlights:

• The hemp products are not regulated.
• I am 100% for the regulation.
• Focusing on is the safety of our patients and as much as I hate to regulate the program or to regulate
• I am not here to oppose regulation. I support responsible regulation.
• You know, the hemp products are regulated, those regulations aren't enforced very well.

Bills: SB3 , SB810 , SB965 , SB1073 , SB1119 , SB1505 , SB 3

Committee: Senate State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• And so I the regulation that I have some personal dealing with is bank regulation.
• . regulation. regulation.
• I want I want banks to be regulated.
• </c> there's a point in which regulation there's a point in which regulation becomes becomes becomes
• and less consistent less regulation and less consistent regulation regulation regulation than<00:08:

Committee: Joint Public Health and Welfare