Transcript Highlights:

• language.
• It's House language.
• It's House language.
• It's House language.
• It's House language.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• wealth building program Senate language wealth building program Senate language drops<00:02:22.640
• about adopting Senate language on R63? about adopting Senate language on R63?
• Senate language but without that change Senate language but without that change was<00:07:26.840>
• The changes on the the Senate language.
• forward with the Senate language forward with the Senate language otherwise. otherwise. otherwise

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• separate language or language is on separate language or language is on every<00:49:51.040> street
• executive action it is now the language executive action it is now the language recognized<00:50
• come here that uh that speak a language come here that uh that speak a language other<00:55:49.599
• into a country is learning the language into a country is learning the language and<01:04:55.000
• American Sign Language.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Transportation Committee met in executive session on several House bills. HB 212, allowing a 180-day operation waiver when a vehicle fails an emissions test, was retained at the sponsor’s request for possible modifications. HB 249, which would have let bicyclists treat stop signs as yields and stop lights as stop signs, was recommended inexpedient to legislate (ITL) by a 9-7 vote, with a minority report expected. The committee then retained HB 298, creating an exception for removing VIN tags from pre-1981 vehicles when needed for repair or restoration, by a 15-1 vote. HB 411-FN, making handheld device use while driving a secondary offense, was recommended ITL by consent after members argued the current primary-offense law is more effective for enforcement and safety. On HB 414, which would have barred DMV license suspensions based on debts owed to private towing or storage companies, the committee rejected ITL and instead retained the bill 16-0 after members split over whether the current law unfairly ties driving privileges to private debt collection. HB 441, addressing visible diesel emissions and “rolling coal,” was recommended ITL 16-0 because members said the conduct is already illegal under existing state and federal law. The committee then took up HB 461, concerning Department of Safety and DMV training and testing materials, where members debated whether driver testing should be limited to English and whether multilingual materials are a safety necessity or discriminatory; the transcript cuts off before a final vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:06:43.880> and so the more trauma informed language and so the more trauma informed language
• <00:08:42.599> to um we send to any right uh language to um we send to any right uh language
• um language trauma informed language<00:38:41.760> I<00:38:41.839> don't language I don't
• back the rebuttable presumption language back the rebuttable presumption language but<01:02:06.480
• of the law only the the language of the law only the language<01:02:22.760> of<01:02:22.920><

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee met on House Bill 553, which concerns the definitions of child abuse and neglect in RSA 169-C, including psychological maltreatment and the rebuttable presumption of harm. The chair and members emphasized that the bill is intended to clarify definitions rather than create punishments, and they discussed concerns that had arisen after the bill’s earlier drafting. Representative Eimon stated his view that the bill is constitutional, citing case law, and members noted that amendment 114 would restore language refined by the prior study committee and address trauma-informed wording, especially around substance use disorder and newborns. A major portion of the discussion focused on whether the bill could be read to treat ordinary parental discipline or disagreements with a child—such as grounding, taking away car keys or a phone, or refusing gender-affirming care—as abuse or neglect. DCF Deputy Director Jen Ross explained that screeners look at the nature of the allegation and whether the parent’s conduct is likely to cause serious psychological or emotional harm; she said routine discipline or prudent parenting would not be screened in, while persistent ridiculing, terrorizing, bullying, isolating, threats, or similar conduct could qualify. She also said that denial of gender-affirming care, by itself, would not be treated as neglect, but the agency would consider the full context and any resulting harm or need for mental health care. DCF General Counsel Susan Larby added that the legislature’s earlier definition of psychological maltreatment and related policy already focus on pervasive emotionally abusive behavior, and that the bill is meant to make the statute more understandable and transparent, not to change the core neglect standard. She and other speakers said the goal is to identify serious harm and provide services, not to remove children for ordinary parental decisions. Lisa Massio of the Office of the Child Advocate said the bill and related placement language are intended to preserve family unity and fill gaps where courts have interpreted neglect too narrowly or inconsistently. Members also discussed a proposed concise analysis from Representative Maral and asked about CPSW qualifications and training; DCF said staff generally have backgrounds in human services, social work, psychology, or education and receive a 12-week Core Academy on policy, law, investigations, and family engagement. No vote was taken in the portion provided, and members indicated they wanted to continue refining the amendment before sending anything to the Office of Legislative Services.

Transcript Highlights:

• I do know, because I know the federal block grant language and I know our state language, the governor
• state language.
• One would be through BAR language.
• It's not in the current language.
• It's not in the current language.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If you don't know, Dakota, or the Dakota language, is the first language of Minnesota.
• endangered category of world languages. endangered category of world languages.
• revitalizing Native American languages. revitalizing Native American languages.
• It's a brand-new language.
• It's a brand-new language.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The House language took that language at the outset.
• just keep sticking with the language just keep sticking with the language that<00:04:01.240>
• What wasn't the the current language What wasn't the the current language that's<00:04:46.640>
• And they want this language or what closely approximates this language as well.
• And they want this language or what closely approximates this language as well.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• on potentially some additional language. on potentially some additional language.
• discuss some of the language. discuss some of the language.
• And come with the language.
• I've got language. We're good.
• I've got language. We're good.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, we'll see about that language.
• Article 5, Senate language. Oh, I one. Article 5, Senate language.
• Just for clarity, did you say the Senate language includes the autism language? Yes.
• language is contained on. Um Mr. Mr. language is contained on. Um Mr. Mr.
• don't have that language in the bill. don't have that language in the bill.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• It's also found in the House language. language. language.
• the Senate language. the Senate language.
• the Senate language.
• Both the language in the House file and the Senate language are very similar.
• Senate language are very similar. Senate language are very similar.

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The committee met to walk through nonpartisan side-by-side comparisons of House File 4188, focusing on differences between House and Senate language across consumer protection, insurance, financial services, health, and technical provisions. Staff highlighted numerous Senate-only items, including rules for financial providers communicating through trusted contacts, virtual currency requirements for banks and credit unions, a prohibition on virtual currency kiosks beginning in 2026, mortgage servicing and student loan servicing changes, the Rental Home Marketplace Guarantees Act, insurance and travel-related provisions, scrap metal licensing changes, protections related to minors accessing chatbots and AI companions, and several technical or conforming repealers. Staff also noted that some provisions were identical or substantially similar between the chambers, including mortgage originator standards, student loan borrower protections, securities-related changes, unclaimed property provisions, and technical updates in the bill’s miscellaneous articles. The Senate-only health-related articles were also summarized, including repeal of the prescription drug affordability advisory council, technical changes to the reinsurance program, and a series of health insurance provisions on enrollment-growth notices, limits on officer and director salary increases under certain capital conditions, guaranteed issue rights for certain Medicare supplement enrollees, data-sharing between Commerce and Health, restrictions on using artificial intelligence alone to deny claims, reimbursement for clinical trainees, home care nursing coverage, and PBM transparency. The Senate’s telecommunications article was described as largely technical and conforming, with repeals of obsolete statutes. Staff also noted that some standalone bills had already passed and would be removed from the comparison report. Public testimony followed. Thomas Elness of AARP Minnesota supported inclusion of the cryptocurrency kiosk bill, expressed support for guaranteed issue protections for a narrow group of consumers affected by discontinued plans, and urged adoption of changes to the consumer protection restitution account, including raising the cap to $10 million per fiscal year. Representative Lee testified that the restitution account proposal should be treated as policy rather than finance because it has a zero fiscal note, and said the House would accept the Senate’s $10 million cap. Robin Rowan, representing the Minnesota Insurance and Financial Services Council and the U.S. Travel Insurance Association, urged adoption of Senate travel insurance language, requested a House-style change to lead-generation recordkeeping language, and supported a Senate provision allowing employers and insurers to coordinate notice to employees when group policies are cancelled. The Department of Commerce then responded to questions, explaining that the prescription drug affordability council would be sunset because the board already has other avenues for public input, that the reinsurance changes were technical and did not alter the prior agreement, and that the abandoned cryptocurrency provisions rely on statutory definitions of inactivity and known examples such as keys stored in safes or deposit boxes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, as I'm sure you have observed, the language in HB 781 as introduced and the language of 131 as introduced
• as<00:03:25.840> in introduced and the language of 131 as in introduced and the language
• Yes, um, I think the language, uh, oh, so a couple things: the language, this applies to, it says school
• student medical disability or language student medical disability or language proficiency<00:11:
• Following language.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee work session of the Education Policy and Administration Committee focused on House Bill 131 and House Bill 781, which were described as nearly identical bills addressing student cell phone use in schools. Members noted that HB 781 is an early bill and therefore needed committee action by Wednesday, while HB 131 did not face that deadline. The chair and members discussed the bills’ shared goal of requiring school boards to develop and adopt policies on student personal device use, with debate over whether the state should set minimum standards or leave more to local control. A major topic was funding. One member urged the committee to avoid creating an unfunded mandate and asked for some funding support, while others argued it was too early to commit money and that the committee should first establish the policy framework. The governor’s proposed funding was discussed, including a $1 million figure in the budget and a separate $250,000 amount referenced in the bill, but several members said the money would likely be insufficient to cover all students or pouch systems statewide. The committee also reviewed a handout reflecting proposed budget language that would require school boards to adopt policies on personal device use during the school day, with schoolwide implementation and exceptions for medical disability or language proficiency needs, and a DOE-administered grant program. Members spent considerable time on drafting details, especially deadlines and exceptions. They debated whether the bills should require school boards to “develop,” “adopt,” or also “implement” policies, and whether the effective date of the act should also serve as the deadline for school boards. They also discussed whether exceptions for classroom instructional use should be mandatory or merely encouraged, and whether the bills should explicitly include or exclude charter schools. Additional proposed exceptions included IEPs, 504 plans, English learners, and medical needs such as glucose sensors or insulin pumps, with some members suggesting medical issues be certified by a physician. No final vote or formal action was taken in the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:07:28.160> to or emergency aid funding language to or emergency aid funding language to
• 00:13:05.960> receiving intent language that districts receiving intent language that districts
• that<00:13:12.200> removes We also add language that removes We also add language that removes
• first-served basis and remove language first-served basis and remove language that<00:13:40.320>
• excess lottery funds, and add language excess lottery funds, and add language establishing<00:23

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Roll Call 00:00:23 HB 503 Discussion 00:01:00 HB 503 Vote 00:02:17 HB 504 Discussion 00:02:53 HB 504 Vote 00:04:48 HB 500 Discussion 00:05:19 HB 500 Vote 00:29:18 HB 900 Discussion 00:32:02 HB 900 Vote 00:33:00, 958, all

Summary: The Kentucky Senate Appropriations and Revenue Committee met with a quorum and first took up House Bill 503, the legislative branch budget, adopting a committee substitute and reporting it favorably. The chair said the Senate version fully funds defined calculations, provides 2% raises in each fiscal year for legislative employees, removes a paragraph on operating expense reductions, and includes $1 million in the first year for a judicial branch salary study. House Bill 504, the judicial branch budget, was then amended and reported favorably; changes included 2% annual raises for judicial employees, revised operating expense language, $1 million each year for county current services, retention of Boyle County fit-up language, reporting requirements for smaller capital projects, full funding for nine judges added in 2022, and removal of furlough prohibitions and certain budget implementation language. Both bills passed the committee unanimously with favorable expressions to the floor. The committee then considered House Bill 500, the executive branch budget, adopting a committee substitute before hearing a lengthy summary of major spending and policy changes. The chair described statewide 2% annual employee raises, agency base reductions with many exemptions, increased school safety and 911 funding, veterans and military funding, local government and severance-related changes, attorney general and auditor funding, pension and retirement system support, education funding changes including SEEK, postsecondary and scholarship provisions, public safety and corrections funding, and multiple capital projects. The chair also highlighted Medicaid-related provisions, including added waiver slots, increased state-directed payments, a 2.5% reduction in managed care vendor payments for plan years 2027 and 2028 with savings redirected to fee-for-service rates, and additional funding for behavioral health and public health programs. The bill was reported favorably after members explained their votes, with several noting they had only recently received the full 228-page bill and wanted more time for detailed review. Finally, the committee adopted a committee substitute for House Bill 900, an appropriation measure for government agencies, and reported it favorably. The chair said the bill remains a work in progress and that one-time funding requests from across the Commonwealth and across party lines would continue to be addressed as the process moves forward. All measures considered during the meeting passed the committee with unanimous or near-unanimous favorable votes, and the meeting adjourned after no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• The chief clerk will call the roll. language on page 29 and page 30, language on page 29 and page 30,
• all vetoed language in section 67, University of Wyoming, that constitutes footnote 9B. of language
• > vetoed<02:59:50.319> language<02:59:50.640> in overriding all vetoed language
• language cons uh con all vetoed language cons uh con constituting<03:05:32.240> section<03:05
• language consisting of Section 310, limitations on salary increase. the governor's veto of language

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The explainer language is in your packet.
• I mean, I think that the explainer is exactly consistent with that language.
• The explanation language for the next one.
• Can I get a motion on the actual explainer language? So moved. Second.
• If I could get a motion on the actual explainer language as amended. Second.

Summary: The joint meeting of the Privileges and Elections Committees convened with a quorum present to approve explanatory ballot language for three proposed constitutional amendments scheduled for the November ballot. The committee reviewed the amendments on reproductive freedom, the right to vote, and the right to marry, with staff explaining that the committee was only approving neutral voter-facing explanation language, not the constitutional text itself. Members raised questions about wording, ballot order, and whether the explanations were sufficiently clear or potentially leading, especially on the reproductive freedom amendment. For HJ 1/SJ 1, the committee debated the explanation at length, including objections that it was misleading or incomplete and responses from counsel and supporters that it accurately tracked the amendment text. A motion to insert “Question 1” into the explanation was adopted, and the amended explainer language for the reproductive freedom amendment was then approved. The committee then moved through the right-to-vote and right-to-marry amendments, similarly adding question numbers to the explanatory language before approving the amended explanations. Recorded votes showed the amendments to the explanatory language passing on party-line divisions in both chambers, generally with Senate support from the majority and House support from the majority, while several members voted no. After approving the amended explainer language for all three amendments, the committee concluded the meeting and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:20:12.880> or<00:20:13.080> language<00:20:13.600> with language or language
• just to strike them from the language. just to strike them from the language.
• language for OPMs.
• which is the Senate language for OPMs. which is the Senate language for OPMs.
• . language. language.

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The committee discussed a higher education attainment-goals bill and several related amendments. Members first reached agreement on funding changes: one amendment redirected money for fraud-prevention software for MnSCU and $5,000 for trees in Bemidji, and another moved $570,000 for workforce development-related funding. Members noted the use of general fund dollars to cover a FIG shortfall and expressed support for addressing fraud prevention while also saying MnSCU should be made whole in the next biennium. Both amendments were adopted. The main policy debate centered on an amendment updating the statewide attainment goal and related P-20 partnership language. Senator Um Ruebain proposed returning the attainment goal from 75 percent to 70 percent, and members discussed whether the bill’s expanded reporting and coordination duties would create costs for the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF). Nonpartisan staff and Commissioner Olsen said the Office of Higher Education and the P-20 partnership expected no costs, while DCYF’s fiscal note assumed reporting and staffing costs. After discussion, DCYF indicated it would absorb the costs, but some members still objected to expanding the partnership and creating additional bureaucracy. Members also debated whether early childhood and K-12 subgoals should be included as part of the attainment-goals framework. Supporters said aligning early childhood, K-12, and higher education goals is necessary to improve postsecondary attainment, while opponents argued the committee should focus on existing higher education goals and basic K-12 achievement. The committee ultimately adopted the Senate language on the attainment-goals section as amended, including the change back to 70 percent and revisions directed by staff to ensure the correct references were updated. The A12 amendment on pregnant and parenting students was also adopted earlier in the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• do is give the child access to language do is give the child access to language what<00:05:03.120
• A lot of it is making sure they have peers with language. They have adults with language.
• would get with access to her language would get with access to her language 100%<00:14:16.880>
• during the 0o to five acquire language during the 0o to five critical<00:15:53.399> language
• under this language.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The explainer language is in your packet. Madam Chair. Yes.
• That's language that may be preferred.
• The explanation language for the next one.
• Can I get a motion on the actual explainer language? So moved. Second.
• Senator Deeds: I move we add question two to the H.J. 3 language.

Keywords: House Committee Room C, General Assembly Building, 976, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• language that we have before us. language that we have before us.
• the federal language?
• the federal language?
• . language. language.
• language that that same kind of language language that that same kind of language with<00:53:58.000

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, this incorporates not only Senator Pearl's updated language, but also the additional language that
• <00:26:27.919> that same um into the the same language that same um into the the same language
• , but also the additional language, but also the additional language<00:26:54.559> that<00:26:
• 54.880> Director<00:26:55.320> Whimsat language that Director Whimsat language that Director
• Pearl's language and director Whimset's<00:28:26.520> language<00:28:27.520> or<00:28:

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Environment and Agriculture Committee met in executive session on SB 302, a bill requiring background checks for solid waste facility owners. The chair announced a staffing change, noting Representative Comtois was no longer vice chair and Representative Barber would serve in that role. The chair then explained that the committee had before it an amendment incorporating Senator Pearl’s updated language and additional technical changes requested by DEES Director Whimsat for FBI background-check requirements, and a separate amendment offered by Representative Patenza that would add language from the budget bill relating to a site evaluation committee, moratorium provisions, and harms-and-benefits language. Representative Patenza argued that the governor’s solid waste and site evaluation language had been developed over years with the committee, the governor’s office, and DEES, and should be moved into a standalone bill so it would not be lost if the budget failed. She said she had been told by Senator Roseford that the budget language would be placed into a separate House bill, and several members supported having a standalone vehicle as a backup. Representative Bixby, Haskins, Gruber, and others said they favored keeping the work alive in a separate bill, while Representative Scully said he disliked non-germane amendments and would vote only for the base bill and the chair’s amendment. Representative Barber asked for clarification on why the amendment was considered non-germane, and the chair and Representative Patenza explained that the budget-related policy had not had a separate public hearing. Members discussed legislative procedure, including whether the committee should recess to allow a hearing on the non-germane amendment and then return to act on SB 302. After discussion, the committee took a show of hands and overwhelmingly favored recessing the executive session to Tuesday, May 13 at 10:00 a.m. in LOB room 301-303, so a separate hearing could be held on Representative Patenza’s amendment before further action on SB 302.

Transcript Highlights:

• the language as it's written in here? the language as it's written in here?
• Um, to me that's I only know I've looked at the language in here.
• , quote placeholder with actual language, quote placeholder with actual language, we<00:08:02.479
• It's 9 million a year language in here.
• that was implemented into language that was implemented into language because<00:10:28.320> I

Keywords: 1187, senate, all