Transcript Highlights:

• ,<00:08:13.440> but<00:08:13.680> then it's the same Senate language, but then it's
• The next row down, the Senate proposes to adopt the Senate language to the changes to paragraph A.
• The next row down, the Senate proposes to adopt the Senate language to the changes to paragraph A.
• <00:10:28.000> except um to include the Senate language except um to include the Senate language
• uh to the changes to Senate language uh to the changes to paragraph<00:10:40.480> A.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So language is important, and there's a lot of words, speaking of language, on this slide.
• And in their language, it is often called a placement.
• Oh, the terminology is old statute language.
• Language is important. Language is important, as Chelsea said, right? Thank you. Other questions?
• We think the rule language is much better.

Keywords: 907, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We didn't want to create extraneous language or language that didn't match the statute itself.
• that same language into the end of Letter C.
• So strike "school" and insert that same language. Okay. Page 13, line 2, yes. Same language.
• So after the word "attending," we would... ...language.
• So it's going to be on page 29; we struck the language that's...

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Language Pathologist. Language Pathologist. >> Please<00:14:33.120> proceed.
• Medicare Part B um is language pathologist um for language pathologist um for reimbursement<00:16:11.279
• wanted to reimburse our speech language wanted to reimburse our speech language pathologists<00:
• I language pathologists in the nation.
• What language are they speaking?" What language are they speaking?"

Keywords: 00:00 Call to Order 0:22 Roll Call 1:05 SB 65 Discussion 9:30 SB 65 Vote 11:55 SB 177 Discussion 26:34 SB 177 Vote 30:05 SB 245 Discussion 33:07 SB 245 Vote 33:48 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Licensing and Occupations met on March 3, 2026, with a quorum present and first took up Senate Bill 65, sponsored by Senator Steve West. The bill would nullify administrative regulations found deficient by the Administrative Regulations Review Subcommittee. West said the committee had found three deficient regulations this year, including one related to vaping rollout problems and one involving GLP-1 coverage expansion for Medicaid. Senator Berg raised concerns that striking the GLP-1 regulation could limit Kentucky’s ability to use these drugs for weight loss and other health benefits, but the sponsor and others said the action would only block the specific regulation and that doctors could still prescribe GLP-1s under existing Medicaid authority. The committee passed SB 65 with favorable expression, 8-2. The committee then considered Senate Bill 177, sponsored by Senator Rick Girdler, and first adopted a substitute. The bill concerns speech-language pathologist licensure. Testimony from Kate Wood Hall and Ann Blandford of the Kentucky Speech-Language-Hearing Association explained that the substitute would remove the mandatory post-professional graduate experience as a requirement for full licensure, while keeping an interim pathway and preserving an optional compact-related pathway. They said the change responds to updated graduate training standards and federal billing issues, including CMS guidance that had temporarily disrupted reimbursement and access, especially in rural areas. Members asked whether the change would weaken standards or affect compact participation; witnesses said it would not, and that the compact option remained available. The committee also noted that pages two and three of the substitute were missing and staff would restore them. Several senators spoke in favor while explaining reservations. Senator Berg supported the bill and shared a personal story about speech therapy in her family. Senator Douglas also voted aye but expressed concern about reducing requirements for trained professionals and about incentives in professional education. Senator Chambers Armstrong asked whether the opt-in structure would create barriers or affect compact participation, and witnesses said it would not increase costs and that other states, including Virginia and Oregon, were pursuing similar approaches. SB 177, as amended by the substitute, passed with favorable expression.

Transcript Highlights:

• and then they also propos a language and then they also propos a language that<00:33:47.080>
• <00:52:57.359> in<00:52:57.520> it<00:52:57.960> that language in it that language
• So is deleting the language okay, or do we need additional language to clarify?
• So is deleting the language okay, or do we need additional language to clarify?
• So, for starters, we will replace the language of the bill entirely with the language of our House version

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Housing Committee heard testimony on several housing-related bills. On SB 26, SD 2, relating to affordable housing, the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development explained a prior transit-oriented development study that identified roughly 59,000 possible units and about 25,000 affordable units from known projects, and said the bill would help fill gaps by evaluating additional public lands for housing suitability and possible co-use with existing facilities. Members asked about the need for resources and staffing to do that work, and OPSD said it would need time and consultant support to carry it out. Testimony on the bill included support from state and county housing agencies and comments from planning and land use entities. On SB 66, SD 2, relating to housing and historic preservation review, SHPD and OHA both testified. SHPD said the bill would not override existing burial-site protections and that county staff with proper qualifications could make historic-property determinations locally, while OHA asked for clearer language requiring consultation when Native Hawaiian historic sites are involved and clearer procedures if an adverse effect is found. Committee members and SHPD discussed whether the bill should explicitly preserve existing Chapter 6E processes, whether counties have qualified staff, and how quickly a county would have to decide if it cannot complete the review itself and must use a third-party reviewer. Supporters said the measure could speed permitting and keep decisions local; one opponent argued it could rush approvals and strain infrastructure. The committee also heard support from housing, construction, business, and food-industry groups, and opposition from some preservation and community advocates. The committee then heard SB 332, SD 1, on foreclosure-related protections, with testimony focused on Lānaʻi and concerns about speculative real estate after the foreclosure moratorium ended. SB 414, SD 2, on restoring access to disaster-affected areas, drew support from HHFDC, DHS, and the Maui Chamber; HHFDC noted DOH plans for a temporary paved access road to the Kayola temporary housing site and said agencies were discussing which parcels would be needed. On SB 102, SD 2, relating to affordable housing and third-party historic review, SHPD said it would need to do more upfront screening and that the bill’s timelines and third-party provisions should be clearer; OHA said the measure should include a sunset and better staffing, and asked that the department fill positions to meet review demand. No votes or final committee actions were reported in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:40:08.960> landed reason why some of this language landed reason why some of this language
• Um, but I’d like to go back to the language of the bill. Um, so, um, I have a few thoughts.
• Um, but I’d like to go back to the language of the bill. Um, so, um, I have a few thoughts.
• the the into silence this language the the language<00:56:02.400> that<00:56:02.480> you
• The language that we have in law right now is from 1905, so it was time.

Bills: HF414, HF768, HF359

Keywords: data practices, filing fee, government transparency, complaints, public access, free speech, human rights, censorship, protected speech, Minnesota Department of Human Rights, real property, partition, eminent domain, transfer on death deeds, property rights, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So we were trying to clarify some of the language in law.
• So that is simply the language that we were trying to adopt here so that it is parallel requirements
• Um, I'm happy to have side conversations with you about the language.
• I'm happy to have it laid over language.
• <00:05:15.120> for it's the exact same language for it's the exact same language for reporting

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House File 1239, authored by Representative Wam and presented by Legislative Auditor Judy Randall, would align reporting requirements for suspected theft, embezzlement, unlawful use of public funds, and similar misconduct by public employees and officers with existing language used for reporting to the state auditor. Randall said the bill is intended as a cleanup measure to clarify that such matters should be reported promptly to law enforcement and to the legislative auditor, and to remove language that she said had sometimes been used to delay reporting. Committee members raised concerns about the bill’s reference to “law enforcement,” saying the term is broad and could create confusion about where reports should go. They questioned whether reports should go to local police, the BCA, or another entity, and suggested that the current process may already work adequately. Randall responded that she was open to further discussion and said delays in reporting to law enforcement have been problematic. The author emphasized that the bill mirrors existing state auditor language and said any changes should remain consistent across both auditors’ reporting statutes. The chair said the committee should resolve the language and definitions before the bill moves further and preferred to address it in the policy omnibus bill. By agreement, House File 1239 was laid over for possible inclusion rather than advanced out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• allow for more cooperative language allow for more cooperative language for<00:10:27.560> the
• <00:13:28.160> from which just changes the language from which just changes the language from
• and we we oppose changing that language. and we we oppose changing that language.
• <00:35:57.960> on language on language on pursuing<00:35:59.560> somebody, Moving on to
• Um, the language on 1.9 to 1.21 in the DE3 amendment, um, again, that's probably superfluous language

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill updates the language to current alignment with other language within the law.
• This bill updates the language to current alignment with other language within the law.
• This bill updates the language to current alignment with other language within the law.
• This bill updates the language to current alignment with other language within the law.
• , so that’s LNA program language.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And then the green language starting on page, or line four, The green language starting on page, or line
• And Dustin, there's received language in that.
• This is existing language, word for word, transferring it over.
• There's some specific language.
• And then keep the language, the new language about the website. All righty. Sorry.

Bills: SB2156

Keywords: campaign finance, disclosure, political contributions, election transparency, North Dakota Century Code, 908, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to review HB 2156, which reorganizes North Dakota campaign finance disclosure law by repealing Chapter 16.1 and moving the provisions into a new Chapter 16.2 with mostly technical cross-reference updates. Legislative Council and the Secretary of State’s office walked through the bill section by section, explaining that most language is carried over from current law, with some cleanup to definitions, reporting requirements, public access rules, and filing procedures. The committee discussed how the new chapter would apply to candidates, candidate committees, political committees, political parties, ballot measure groups, and conduits. Several substantive issues were raised and adjusted during the discussion. Members questioned the open-records language for expenditures and contributions over $250, the use of “deposit” versus “receipt” as the reporting trigger, and whether the 48-hour supplemental reporting deadline should be changed to three calendar days; the group ultimately favored keeping 48 hours and using “deposit” consistently. They also clarified reporting dates, including changing one special-election deadline from 40 days to 39 days, and confirmed that balances of campaign funds would be reported but not made publicly available. The Secretary of State’s office also explained that the bill would make late fees public and that the chapter-wide penalty for willful violations remains a Class A misdemeanor. The main policy change debated at length was the late-filing fee schedule. Members expressed concern that the existing penalties were too low to deter intentional non-filers, and after discussion the committee agreed to increase the final late fee from $100 to $500 while keeping the new public posting of delinquent filers. The committee also reviewed an inflation-adjustment provision for reporting thresholds and the “ultimate true source of funds” language, which was described as existing law being carried into the new chapter. The meeting ended with the understanding that additional drafting changes would be made and that the bill would be ready for further committee action later in the week.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, the language is nearly identical, with one exception, to that in the Senate version, which should
• The boilerplate on lines 1.8 and 1.9 discuss how the new language will read.
• And appreciate the work the language that Representative Long put together."
• <00:25:07.320> of that, I move to adopt the language of that, I move to adopt the language
• Senator Kunesh moves that we adopt the language that passed off the House floor.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The conference committee on House File 3900 met with a quorum, introduced members and staff, and received a nonpartisan walkthrough of the bill. Staff explained that the proposal would change the permanent school fund’s distribution formula from interest and dividends to a statutory payout based on 4.5% of the fund’s average value over the previous three fiscal years, with the Commissioner of Management and Budget responsible for determining and transferring the distributable amount. The Senate version differed by adding language requiring a two-thirds vote of each legislative house to change the distribution policy or apportionment. Members then debated whether a future legislature could increase the payout and whether the constitutional language would sufficiently protect the fund’s purchasing power. Senator Farnsworth argued that a supermajority requirement would help prevent politicization and lock in the fund’s purpose, while Representative Long, Senator Kunesh, Representative Youakim, and Representative O’Driscoll opposed the supermajority as unnecessary and potentially politicizing, emphasizing existing constitutional protections, fiduciary duties, and the legislature’s track record of stewarding school trust lands for students. Staff indicated the language requiring preservation of purchasing power would be a strong safeguard, though the exact legal remedy was unclear. Senator Kunesh moved to adopt the House File 3900 second engrossment as the conference committee report. The committee took a roll call vote and approved the motion 7-1, with Senator Farnsworth voting no. After the vote, Senator Swedzinski offered brief remarks about the historical importance of school trust funds and public education.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:07:43.560> in governor's language in governor's language in hb2<00:07:45.479> um
• I think the proponent of the language was my colleague, and I was, you know, his language.
• I think the proponent of the language was my colleague, and I was, you know, his language.
• I think the proponent of the language was my colleague, and I was, you know, his language.
• I think the proponent of the language was my colleague, and I was, you know, his language.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Division 2 Finance Committee work session focused primarily on House Bill 115 and a proposed amendment, 114H, which would carry over language from HB 2 into HB 115 and place limits on Education Freedom Accounts (EFAs). Representative Murray described the amendment as a way to keep the 350% federal poverty eligibility cap, require students to have attended a charter public school in grades K-12 for the preceding year before entering the voucher system, and add guardrails against universal eligibility. She argued the state was facing a severe budget crisis, that expanding EFAs would divert money from other programs, and that public testimony and local votes showed widespread opposition to expansion. She also cited a letter from former Finance chair Neil Kirk opposing expansion. Other members responded that the committee should not revisit policy already decided by the House, though some said the amendment was fair to discuss because of its fiscal implications and supported it on that basis. The discussion then broadened into a debate over the fiscal impact of universal vouchers and the reliability of enrollment and cost estimates. Representative Luno argued that prior EFA projections had relied on assumptions that could badly underestimate state exposure, pointing to Arizona as a cautionary example and saying New Hampshire should not expand the program without better analysis. Representative Papovich similarly warned that universal eligibility could create a large, unexpected cost, estimating a potential exposure of about $285 million based on school-age children not currently in public, charter, or EFA programs. In contrast, Representative Weyler said EFAs can save money because public school spending is already high and parents using EFAs still pay taxes and take on more responsibility for their children’s education. After discussion, Representative Murray moved to accept the amendment, and Representative Bean seconded it. There was some procedural clarification about voting on the original bill and the amendment. The transcript ends before a final recorded vote on the amendment or on HB 115 itself, though the committee had also been told it would likely reconsider several retained bills later in the week, including HB 129, HB 133, HB 671, and HB 781.

Transcript Highlights:

• Because I know the language isn't in there.
• There has been promised language that is supposed to rectify the issues found in SB 131.
• There has been promised language that is supposed to rectify the issues found in SB 131.
• So this particular section has bond language about its specific criteria.
• But there's no actual assurance, just the language of the bond currently.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee held an informational hearing on the September budget package, which included SB 105 and a series of trailer bills covering health, human services, education, resources, child care, transportation, labor, public safety, housing, revenue, background checks, collective bargaining, and a special election. The Department of Finance described the package as largely technical and clarifying, but also responsive to state and federal changes, especially H.R. 1. Key items included roughly $3.3 billion in Proposition 4 climate and environmental spending, $540 million in discretionary greenhouse gas reduction funds, and major responses to H.R. 1 such as CalFresh error-rate mitigation, food bank support, and Medicaid-related changes. Other notable provisions included vaccine policy flexibility, an Abortion Access Fund, a gender-affirming care program, community college basic-needs and aid changes, CEQA and coastal permit exemptions tied to the 2028 Olympics, invasive mussel prevention funding, a civic media program, labor and pension-related provisions, and special election administration changes. Members raised questions and concerns about several parts of the package. There was support for climate, water, transit, offshore wind, food security, and health investments, but also significant criticism of the lack of cleanup language for SB 131 and its advanced manufacturing exemptions, with multiple members saying promised fixes had not materialized and expressing concerns about tribal consultation, labor standards, and environmental protections. Members also questioned the scale and timing of some Proposition 4 allocations, including fairground upgrades, regional conveyance, and a UC Davis alternative protein research center. The Department of Finance said some programs would roll out over time and that certain funding levels reflected current implementation capacity. The hearing also featured discussion of Bay Area transit financing, with Finance saying SB 105 directs the department and CalSTA to examine loan or other financing options rather than immediately providing loans. Members and public commenters also discussed the state’s response to H.R. 1, with advocates supporting food bank, health care, and immunization provisions while warning of ongoing harm to immigrants, foster youth, and other vulnerable groups. Public testimony broadly supported the health, food, water, offshore wind, and golden mussel provisions, while many speakers echoed legislative concerns about SB 131 and urged cleanup action in the next session. No votes were taken because the hearing was informational only, though the chair noted votes on the bills were expected later that night or the next morning.

Transcript Highlights:

• thank you I believe under this language thank you I believe under this language it<00:49:03.760>
• So that amendment would have had that language mimic the language that you already have on page nine.
• , you're removing that language.
• Amendment would have had that language Amendment would have had that language mimic<01:14:12.360
• , you're removing that language.

Bills: HF1, HF98

Keywords: Office of Inspector General, inspector general, legislative audit, fraud prevention, waste and abuse, public funds, grant oversight, state grants, grant management, whistleblower protection, retaliation, subpoena power, data practices, government transparency, accountability, law enforcement referrals, sanctions, debarment, payment withholding, public assistance fraud

Transcript Highlights:

• Um so I I I would support the and language rather than the or language.
• Um so I I I would support the and language rather than the or language.
• Um so I I I would support the and language rather than the or language.
• Um so I I I would support the and language rather than the or language.
• Um so I I I would support the and language rather than the or language.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, that language we adopted.
• <00:03:41.440> so we've adopted some of that language so we've adopted some of that language
• We took So, that language we adopted.
• The working group language becomes effective on July 1st, 2025.
• The working group language becomes effective on July 1st, 2025.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• > amendment language in that author's amendment language in that author's amendment stipulates
• The language also strengthens branch.
• <00:25:06.720> in you read in the the repeal language in you read in the the repeal language
• That's my some stronger language.
• that language into the statute. that language into the statute.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:21:16.880> Thank certain items in the language. Thank certain items in the language.
• Um, this is the new language that Mr.
• <00:23:42.080> as capital improvement type uh language as capital improvement type uh language
• <00:24:03.280> to sculpture at Lake Failen Language to sculpture at Lake Failen Language to
• of the bill, there's some new language of the bill, there's some new language and<02:07:26.800><

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we just think the existing language is sufficiently covering that.
• So we just think the existing language is sufficiently covering that.
• CDCR put forward trailer bill language...
• So with regards to the reporting language, we're happy to consider any reporting language, and we can
• The other is that in the language, there was a requirement that— The other is that in the language, there

Summary: The subcommittee heard May Revision presentations for the Office of Emergency Services, Judicial Branch, CDCR, and the Department of Justice, with the LAO offering comments and recommendations throughout. For Cal OES, the administration outlined funding for relocating the Red Mountain communications site, increased FEMA reimbursement authority, cybersecurity grants, next-generation 911 support, and a reduction to the Flexible Cash Assistance for Survivors of Crime program. Members raised concerns about VOCA backfill and disaster reimbursement, while the LAO recommended approving the 911 request with reporting, adding contingency planning for cybersecurity grants, clarifying the FEMA reimbursement language, and increasing reporting on emergency spending. For the Judicial Branch, the May Revision included funding for implementation of the Trial Nations Access to Justice Act, reductions tied to court facilities and employee benefits, and General Fund solutions such as a reduction to the pretrial release program, a reversion from the Trial Court Trust Fund, and elimination of the jury duty pilot program. The LAO cautioned that the pretrial reduction could affect detention and release decisions and recommended tighter legislative oversight over the trust fund transfer and reallocation language. Members questioned the impact of the pretrial cut, the lack of Prop. 36 court funding, and the rationale for the jury pilot elimination; the Judicial Branch said it was generally supportive of the budget as proposed. CDCR presented requests for roof repairs, fire alarm replacements, CalAIM-related costs, and trailer bill changes on incarcerated college students, mental health hiring, and tuberculosis testing, along with a planned prison closure by October 2026. The department also proposed reducing or delaying several items, including radio replacement, ADA improvements, COVID mitigation, and some facility upgrades, while adding a $125 million placeholder for consultant-driven operational savings. The LAO recommended rejecting or reducing several San Quentin-related proposals, questioned the staffing and contract medical requests, and urged more transparency on the consultant savings plan; members expressed concern about the realism of the savings targets and the potential legal or operational risks from delaying ADA and radio projects. For DOJ, the May Revision proposed ongoing funding and 44 positions to defend against federal actions, IT and accounting system upgrades, implementation funding for AB 1877, and a special fund loan. The LAO supported the KLETS connection but asked for a contingency plan if the new DMV link is delayed, noted that AB 1877 would not be fully implemented without additional funding, and recommended limiting and reporting on the federal accountability workload. Members questioned the size and permanence of the DOJ request, the use of the earlier $25 million special session appropriation, and the pace of federal litigation; DOJ said the new request would support ongoing litigation, expert assistance, and coordination across multiple cases and states.

Transcript Highlights:

• Section 11 is new language relating to dual language immersion programs.
• Section 11 is new language relating to dual language immersion programs.
• Section 11 is new language relating to dual language immersion programs.
• Section 11 is new language relating to dual language immersion programs.
• Section 11 is new language relating to dual language immersion programs.

Bills: HF1388

Keywords: BARR Center, Building Assets, Reducing Risks, education finance, school funding, grant appropriation, evidence-based program, student achievement, social and emotional learning, school climate, teacher effectiveness, high school graduation, students in poverty, students of color, BIPOC, equity in education, Minnesota Department of Education, urban schools, suburban schools, rural schools, school coaching