Transcript Highlights:

• Certainly the biggest hang-up is that the Minnesota House DFL would like to operate under the power-sharing
• Then, when we return to a tie, we would go to the power-sharing agreement that we negotiated, which would
• </c> Minnesota house regarding Powers sharing Minnesota house regarding Powers sharing is<00:09:58.000
• Our basic principle is shared power. That means equal, 50/50.
• </c><00:13:16.440><c> power</c> our basic principle is shared power our basic principle is shared power

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Vinny DiMesei-Messi, who shared he could not make it. Angela Lopes. Present.
• Senator Vinny DiMesei-Messi who shared he could not make it. Angela Lopes. Present.
• I shared what the commission is supposed to do.
• I can share that in a little bit. I just need to reformat it. Okay. Great.
• Michelle, is there anyone else that has shared a gap or is responding?

Keywords: 1212, all

Summary: The commission met to continue work on planning a Cape Verdean Cultural Center in Massachusetts, with a focus on finalizing membership and preparing for a feasibility study. After roll call and introductions, members reviewed and unanimously approved the November 25 minutes. The chair described the commission’s mandate, including monthly meetings, cultural institution visits, listening sessions, and hiring a consultant to conduct the feasibility study. Members also discussed the historical importance of the project in light of Cape Verde’s 50th anniversary of independence and the 250th anniversary of the United States. A major portion of the meeting was devoted to a draft nomination criteria document for expanding the commission. The criteria emphasized geographic, generational, gender, and sector diversity, along with needed expertise in areas such as arts and cultural programming, history, museum work, architecture, fundraising, nonprofit governance, higher education, language preservation, community organizing, economic development, legal issues, and communications. Members highlighted several organizations and institutions as important designees, including Bridgewater State’s Pedro Pires Institute, Mili Mila, the Schooner Ernestina Morrissey Advisory Board, and the New Bedford Whaling Museum. The criteria document was amended to explicitly include Cape Cod, and then approved unanimously. The commission then reviewed a slate of 16 additional nominees to fill the remaining seats, discussing gaps in legal expertise, Taunton representation, and other regional needs. Members noted that some nominees could also support a separate Cape Verdean associations body rather than serve on the commission itself. After discussion, the body approved forming a three-member nominating committee consisting of the chair, Commissioner Monica Vega, and Commissioner Manny Lopes to narrow the list and report back. Commissioners also agreed to schedule another meeting later in the month to vote on final appointments, and the meeting adjourned after those action steps were set.

Transcript Highlights:

• So thank you all for sharing all of that.
• Thank you for sharing that, Undersecretary.
• Thank you for sharing that under Secretary.
• So thank you, as always, for sharing. You're welcome.
• Representative Donnie, thank you for sharing.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Working Group on Outreach and Treatment of the Special Commission on Xylazine held its first meeting, chaired by Gabe Adams-Cain in Senator John Villis’s absence. Members introduced themselves and described priorities such as improving education about xylazine, expanding first responder and clinical training, and ensuring patients and providers know how to respond to xylazine-related wounds and complications. Several participants emphasized that outreach should reach both people who have not been exposed and those already affected, and that stigma is a major barrier for patients and families. Discussion focused on the main challenges to treatment and outreach, including limited awareness, inconsistent wound care access, gaps in geographic coverage, cost of supplies, and the need for better training in both outpatient and inpatient settings. Dr. Kimmel noted that harm reduction and outreach programs are already providing much of the care, but often lack specialized staff, sufficient supplies, and standardized protocols. He also said xylazine can complicate withdrawal and make it harder for people to engage in substance use treatment. Members discussed the value of non-stigmatizing, consensus messaging, family support organizations, and existing resources such as PARI, StreetCheck, and state-funded syringe service and naloxone networks. The group also reviewed the commission timeline and next steps. Staff said materials for the December 11 full commission meeting should be submitted by December 2, with draft presentation materials to be shared by December 4 and reviewed by December 9. Members agreed to do additional follow-up research on topics including the cost-effectiveness and contents of self-care wound kits, outreach to family and recovery organizations, incarcerated populations, and geographic access gaps. The meeting ended with agreement to use a PowerPoint-style presentation and to continue compiling research through a shared folder, followed by adjournment at 9:55 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, the law enforcement obviously would, but they're able to share.
• So this is not saying that they would share everything with law enforcement.
• that you cannot share is just the name of the reporter.
• And so when we're working with DMH, we cannot share that.
• Thank you for being here and sharing this.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Vinny DiMasei-Messi, who shared he could not make it. Angela Lopes. Present.
• I shared what the commission is supposed to do.
• I can share that in a little bit. I just need to reformat it. Okay. Great.
• Is there anyone else that has shared a gap or is responding?
• Can you guys share whether you'd accept the nomination for the two-week project?

Summary: The meeting focused on the Cape Verdean Cultural Center Commission’s work to build a feasibility study and expand its membership. Members reviewed and approved the prior meeting minutes, then discussed draft nomination criteria meant to ensure geographic, generational, gender, and sector diversity, along with needed expertise such as arts and cultural programming, history, museum work, architecture, fundraising, nonprofit governance, language preservation, community organizing, economic development, government/policy, legal expertise, and communications. The commission also discussed designating seats for organizations such as the Pedro Pires Institute for Cape Verdean Culture at Bridgewater State, Mili Mila, the Schooner Ernestina-Morrissey Advisory Board, and the New Bedford Whaling Museum. A long list of potential nominees was reviewed, including people with backgrounds in education, community advocacy, museums, maritime history, arts, law, and economic development. Commissioners raised concerns about gaps, especially legal expertise and representation from Taunton and Cape Cod, and noted that some nominees might need to serve as organizational designees rather than individual members. Several commissioners supported the overall slate but asked for more time to vet the candidates against the criteria. The commission then voted to create a three-member nominating committee consisting of the chair, Senator Miranda, Commissioner Monica Vega, and Commissioner Manny Lopes, with Vega and Lopes accepting the assignment. The committee was tasked with narrowing the 16 additional nominees down to 12 open seats and reporting back at a special meeting later in the month, with the goal of finalizing appointments before the February meeting. The meeting adjourned after the motion passed.

Transcript Highlights:

• in such a fashion as to be shared pro rata with FTEs.
• So five charter schools would not share one slice of pie.
• in such a fashion as to being shared pro rata with FTEs.
• So five charter schools would not share one slice of pie.
• If you raised more from a mill, you got a better share.

Summary: The Finance and Tax Committee met with a quorum present and took up two bills. The first, SPB 7046, was the Senate tax package. It included changes to Live Local property tax opt-outs, charter school distributions from voter-approved property tax levies, RV park special assessments, fiscally constrained county funding, a permanent sales tax exemption for small propane tanks, a hunting/fishing/camping sales tax holiday, and provisions barring governmental net zero policies. An amendment made the charter-school distribution change prospective starting July 1, 2026. Committee discussion focused heavily on whether the charter-school language would divert money from traditional public schools and on the fiscal-constrained county formula. The bill was reported favorably as a committee bill after a roll call vote, with Senators Bernard and Jones voting no. The committee also considered SPB 7048, which updates Florida’s conformity to the Internal Revenue Code as of January 1, 2026 and partially decouples from federal tax changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The bill addresses bonus depreciation, research and experimental expenses, business meal deductions, and the business interest deduction, with the Revenue Estimating Conference expected to review the fiscal impact later in the week. The Florida Chamber testified that the bill should better align with federal tax relief and reduce administrative burdens, while senators emphasized the need to balance business tax relief with state revenue constraints. SPB 7048 was also reported favorably as a committee bill by roll call vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• in such a fashion as to be shared pro rata with FTEs.
• So five charter schools would not share one slice of pie.
• in such a fashion as to being shared pro rata with FTEs.
• So five charter schools would not share one slice of pie.
• If your millage rate was higher, you got more of a share.

Summary: The Finance and Tax Committee met with a quorum and considered two Senate proposed bills. The first, SPB 7046, was the Senate tax package. It included changes to Live Local property tax exemptions, charter school distributions from voter-approved property tax levies, limits on special assessments for RV parks, revisions to fiscally constrained county funding and eligibility, a permanent sales tax exemption for small propane tanks, a hunting/fishing/camping sales tax holiday, restrictions on governmental net zero policies, and new voting thresholds for certain local millage actions. Staff estimated the bill would reduce general revenue by about $77 million in FY 2026-27 and about $50 million recurring. An amendment making the charter-school distribution change prospective starting July 1, 2026, was adopted. A late-filed amendment by Senator Gaetz on disability tax exemptions was withdrawn for lack of a fiscal analysis. The charter school provision drew the most debate. Senator Jones and Senator Bernard raised concerns that expanding eligibility to charter schools authorized through alternate authorizers could reduce funding available to traditional neighborhood public schools and that the effective date did not give districts enough time to plan. Senator Avila argued the change corrected an omission from earlier legislation and ensured public schools, including charter schools, were treated equally. Several speakers supported the fiscally constrained county provisions, while the Florida Association of Counties urged grandfathering for counties that could currently opt out of the Live Local exemption and asked the committee to review language on millage thresholds and net zero provisions. SPB 7046 was ultimately reported favorably as a committee bill by a roll call vote. The committee then took up SPB 7048, which updates Florida’s conformity to the Internal Revenue Code as of January 1, 2026, and partially decouples from federal changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The bill addresses federal changes to bonus depreciation, Section 179 expensing, research and experimental expenses, business meals, and business interest deductions, with some provisions phased in or adjusted over time. The Florida Chamber testified in support of continued conformity but expressed concerns about administrative burdens and the bill’s partial decoupling structure. After brief debate, the bill was reported favorably as a committee bill by roll call vote, and the committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Giacchi will share some more information, but there's a, these... And I know Ms.
• Elena Giochi, who is here to also share some information, and then Ms.
• Our grandmothers, our aunties, have shared the story among safe spaces in our homes.
• I was sharing. Thank you. And who knows what else happened.
• And so anyway, I just wanted to share this with you.

Summary: The Senate Indian, Rural and Cultural Affairs Committee heard Senate Memorial 14, which calls on the Indian Affairs Department and the Commission on the Status of Women to conduct a comprehensive study of the history, scope, and continuing impacts of forced and coerced sterilization of Indigenous women and women of color. Sponsors and advocates said the memorial is intended to document harms that occurred not only in Indian Health Service facilities but also through other health providers, while being culturally sensitive and respectful of tribal sovereignty. Supporters described the issue as a reproductive justice, human rights, and Indigenous rights matter, and said the study could help lead to acknowledgment, healing, and possible reparative action. Several witnesses gave personal testimony. Representative Caballero shared a personal experience in which she nearly underwent a hysterectomy after a miscarriage due to forms she was asked to sign while sedated, and said that experience motivated her support. Jean Whitehorse, a Navajo Nation member and daughter of a Navajo code talker, described being sterilized in 1972 after treatment at Gallup Indian Health Service and said the practice caused lasting trauma to Native families. Other speakers, including Elena Giacchi, Keeley Badger, Jennifer Raphael Gatz, Rachel Lorenzo, Alicia Carese Lobbius, Nasserian Olamako, Deanna Warren, and Kat Sanchez, supported the memorial and emphasized the need for survivor testimony, historical records, data gathering, informed consent protections, and culturally grounded healing. Committee members asked about the difficulty of obtaining records and whether the information exists or is being blocked. Witnesses said access is limited, requests often need to come from official state or federal bodies, and many records may be sealed or difficult to retrieve. The Commission on the Status of Women said it could serve as the organizing entity for a three-phase process: gathering data, holding discussions with subject matter experts and survivors, and contracting with an Indigenous organization to prepare the report. After public comment and questions, the committee voted 4-0 to give Senate Memorial 14 a do pass recommendation, and the chair then recessed the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• :17:25.400><c> uh</c> and that share is approximately 74.6 uh and that share is approximately 74.6 uh
• </c> recipient and the total sh State share recipient and the total sh State share and<00:18:02.200><
• </c> this estimate uh the total State share this estimate uh the total State share estimate<00:18:13.640
• Representative Hicks, thank you so much for sharing that.
• </c> planet and as the department just shared planet and as the department just shared that<00:30:16.760

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I just think that's important for me to share. So I'll pass off to Mandy.
• Or if there are resources that you are sharing with your providers to share them with the direct support
• Or if there are resources that you're sharing with your providers to share then with the direct resources
• that you're sharing with your providers to share them with the direct support providers.
• Just want to give you the opportunity to share if you want to share out anything.

Keywords: 1212, all

Summary: The Workforce Support Subcommittee of the Status of Persons with Disabilities met, approved prior minutes, and heard a presentation from the Association of Developmental Disabilities Providers (ADDP) on its 2025 workforce metrics survey. ADDP described its membership and the survey’s scope, which covers community-based services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, autism, and brain injuries. The survey had strong participation, with 102 of 132 members responding, and this year included new questions on rising health insurance costs. ADDP reported that workforce conditions have improved for a third consecutive year, with the overall vacancy rate falling from 19% in 2024 to 15% in 2025, and vacancy declines across several program areas. However, vacancies remain high in key roles such as licensed practical nurses and clinicians, nearly 4,000 positions remain unfilled, and about 1,800 people are still waiting for day services. Providers also reported major health insurance premium increases, which they said make it harder to offer competitive wages and benefits and affect recruitment and retention. Committee members discussed the impact of federal immigration policy, workforce shortages, and the need to maintain recent gains in staffing. The subcommittee then elected Rachel Caprillion and Leo Sarkisian as co-chairs by vote. Members discussed possible topics and guests for the next meeting, including training, turnover, waiting lists, direct support professional pipelines, apprenticeships, and possible speakers from state agencies, advocacy organizations, other states, and workforce programs such as JVS. The meeting ended with a motion to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• But they are not able to process the two medicines and see what my cost sharing is.
• And if all the biosimilars are preferred drugs, it should yield a lower cost sharing.
• It should yield a lower cost sharing.
• substitution could lead to a higher cost share for the patient, and that's the thing that's all we're
• However, market share remains too low.

Summary: The Health Care and Wellness Committee met on February 10 at 8:30 a.m. and heard two bills. On Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5594, staff explained that the bill would expand state policy on biosimilars by allowing health carriers to require patients to try a biosimilar before covering the equivalent brand drug starting in 2027, directing exchange plans to increase biosimilar utilization, and changing pharmacist substitution rules so substitution is generally allowed unless the prescriber says not to substitute. The prime sponsor, Sen. Harris, said the bill would lower costs and noted many other states already allow similar substitution. Supporters from health plans and generic/biosimilar manufacturers said biosimilars are safe, effective, and can save consumers and the system money, while a patient advocate raised concerns that the bill may not guarantee lower out-of-pocket costs at the pharmacy counter and suggested preferred formulary placement as a fix. AAM supported the bill with a technical amendment to place biosimilars in the same section as generics and interchangeable products, and the hearing on the bill was closed with no vote taken. The committee also heard Engrossed Senate Bill 5142 on Medicaid network adequacy for post-acute care. Staff said the bill would require the Health Care Authority to adopt network adequacy standards for nursing homes and inpatient rehabilitation facilities, considering community access, regional availability, timeliness, and federal Medicaid rules, with standards due by January 1, 2028 and implementation by July 1, 2028. Sen. Muzzall described it as a follow-up to last year’s bill that would create a pre-approved pathway for patients who are difficult to discharge because continuing care is hard to secure. Testimony from hospital and health system representatives strongly supported the bill, saying patients often remain in hospitals longer than medically necessary because of delays in finding skilled nursing or rehab placements and because single-case agreements are time-consuming and unpredictable, especially in rural areas. Public testimony on SB 5142 was then closed, and the meeting adjourned without any recorded votes or other action.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I'd like to share... I'll do any time, thank you, but I'd like to share the...
• And I'd like to share, thank you, but I'd like to share that with Deb, Deb from MTA.
• Thank you for sharing your story. Catherine Duggan? Duggan.
• We have a shared contract for that.
• Our shared elementary school serves both Hawley and Charlemont.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused primarily on H. 517/S. 314, a bill to provide a sustainable future for rural schools, and H. 697, a bill to require full funding of regional school transportation. Witnesses from rural districts, school committees, superintendents, students, and local officials described chronic underfunding, declining enrollment, high fixed costs, special education and transportation burdens, and the loss of programs, staff, and extracurriculars. Several speakers argued that rural aid should be funded at $60 million annually and made non-discretionary, while others emphasized that transportation reimbursement for regional districts has repeatedly fallen short of the state’s promise and is driving budget crises and overrides. A number of students testified in support of rural aid, describing cuts to classes, counselors, and activities, and the impact on their schools and communities. Committee members also discussed whether transportation policy should be revisited to address underlying cost drivers, including bus bidding practices and whether regional districts should have more flexibility in transportation requirements. The committee also heard H. 515, concerning Hancock Elementary School and a school choice-related exemption from a state requirement that has created a large financial burden for the district. Hancock’s superintendent and Rep. John Barrett explained that a decades-old regulation, recently enforced by DESE, would require Hancock to pay tuition for choice-in students through high school graduation even though the district only serves pre-K through grade 6 and sends its own students elsewhere for middle and high school. They said the rule creates a significant per-student shortfall and has forced Hancock to opt out of school choice. Committee members asked for clarification about how the arrangement works and how the costs fall on Hancock. Additional testimony supported related transportation bills for non-regional districts, especially Plymouth/Carver and North Middlesex, describing high and rising bus costs, special education and McKinney-Vento transportation expenses, and the strain on local budgets. Speakers repeatedly said that state reimbursement has not matched actual costs and that communities are being forced to choose between transportation and classroom services. No votes or final actions were taken in the hearing; the committee simply received testimony and closed the hearing on the bills discussed.

Transcript Highlights:

• Tip sharing is another. Um, one thing. Tip sharing is another.
• Tip sharing is different. their money. Tip sharing is different.
• But that's tip sharing.
• But that's tip sharing.
• </c> partake in the tip sharing. partake in the tip sharing.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee opened its labor hearing on SB 655 and outlined the day’s schedule, including a later working session on SB 416 and an executive session planned for 2:30 p.m. Senator Dan Innis introduced SB 655, describing it as a technical bill affecting employee leasing companies/professional employer organizations (PEOs), workers’ compensation coverage, and a Senate-added minimum wage exemption for minor league baseball players covered by a collective bargaining agreement. He said the PEO change would let either the PEO or the client business hold workers’ comp coverage, while still requiring coverage, and argued it would align New Hampshire with most other states and reduce barriers for small businesses and multi-state employers. He also said the baseball provision would clarify wage treatment for minor league players and support the Manchester team. Justin Warell of Insperity testified in support of the PEO portion, explaining that PEOs provide HR, payroll, benefits administration, and workers’ compensation administration through a co-employment model. He said the bill would preserve mandatory coverage while allowing flexibility for the client or PEO to maintain the policy, which could help clients who already have preferred coverage or who face cost or administrative issues in multiple states. He noted that most clients would still remain under the PEO’s policy and said Insperity would submit written comments. Committee members asked about how the arrangement would work, whether the client or PEO would pay, and whether the bill would affect liability insurance packaging; Warell said the employer still bears the cost and that the bill mainly gives larger clients an option. One member asked him to remain available for possible follow-up after hearing from the labor department. Stephen Gonzalez of Major League Baseball testified in support of the minor league baseball exemption. He said MLB and the MLB Players Association negotiated a collective bargaining agreement that already provides players with salary, housing, meals, per diems, health and retirement benefits, disability continuation, tuition assistance, and signing bonuses. He argued that treating players as hourly workers creates impractical time-tracking problems because players do work-related activities on their own time, and said the bill would recognize them as salaried workers and avoid litigation over what counts as hours worked. Committee members questioned why the exemption was needed if players are already salaried and whether MLB could simply amend its CBA; Gonzalez said the bill would help prevent wage-and-hour lawsuits and noted that similar exemptions have been enacted in other states. No vote was taken during the hearing, and the chair indicated the bill would be considered for executive action later that afternoon.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:02:11.039><c> responsibility</c> stepped into the shared responsibility stepped into the shared
• </c> and created the 2010 shared and created the 2010 shared responsibility<01:03:31.319><c> Bill</c>
• I think that's a shared goal.
• /c><01:04:11.039><c> sharing</c><01:04:11.440><c> mechanism</c> everybody this cost sharing mechanism
• </c> opinion uh may it violate the shared opinion uh may it violate the shared responsibility<01:08:52.319

Keywords: Meeting start 00:06:05 Roll Call 00:06:33 HB 152 Discussion 00:07:55 HB 152 PHS 2 Vote 00:10:12 HB 545 Discussion HB 545 PHS 1 Vote 00:13:47 HB 606 Discussion 00:15:15 HB 606 Vote 00:16:32 HJR 30 Discussion HJR Vote 00:19:07 HJR 32 Discussion 00:20:25 HJR 32 PHS 1 Vote 00:23:11 HJR 34 Discussion 00:25:04 HJR 34 PHS 1 Vote 00:28:50 HJR 46 Discussion 00:30:09 HJR 46 Vote 00:34:15 HJR 53 Discussion 00:35:40 HJR 53 Vote 00:38:55 HJR 54 Discussion 00:40:15 HJR 54 Vote 00:40:50 HB 546 Discussion 00:42:15 HB 546 PHS 1 Vote 00:46:15 HB 605 Discussion 00:47:38 HB 605 PHS 1 Vote 00:52:10 HB 694 Discussion 00:53:46 HB 694 Vote 01:07:47 HB 695 Discussion Only 01:10:20, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Appropriations and Revenue met on February 25 and considered a series of bills and joint resolutions, mostly involving appropriations, capital projects, and local infrastructure funding. The committee first adopted PHS 2 and passed House Bill 152, which creates a Medicaid supplemental payment program for public ground ambulance providers; the sponsor said the substitute ensures no state general fund dollars will be used and that local agencies must identify a funding source for any required match. HB 152 was reported favorably on a 20-0 vote. The committee also passed House Bill 545, the annual claims bill, after members confirmed all executive-branch claims were included; it was reported favorably on a 21-0 vote. House Bill 606, requiring reporting for general obligation bonds, also passed unanimously and was reported favorably. The committee then took up several joint resolutions tied to capital and infrastructure spending. House Joint Resolution 30, concerning water projects, was described as implementing ranked projects under the Waters program administered by KIA and was reported favorably on a 21-0 vote. House Joint Resolution 32, concerning school facilities construction, was amended by PHS 1 and advanced after discussion referencing the Auditor’s report and questions about a Johnson County Schools expenditure; it also passed 21-0. House Joint Resolution 34, relating to contingent appropriations for KCTCS, was amended by PHS 1 and advanced after testimony outlining three projects in Somerset, Jefferson Community and Technical College, and Glasgow; it passed 21-0. House Joint Resolution 46, for local road projects, was described as funding the highest-scoring local road requests from a larger pool of applications and passed 21-0. The committee also advanced House Joint Resolution 53, authorizing release of funds for KSU’s Health Sciences Center project, after KSU officials said the building is needed for nursing and allied health programs and promised a business plan report by November 1, 2025; it passed 21-0. House Joint Resolution 54, authorizing funds related to the State Fair Board, also passed unanimously. Later, the committee considered House Bill 546, which revises the local roads and streets program by adding a DOT-developed scoring system, monthly reporting, a match requirement, and a $500,000 project cap; members asked about the cap and were told larger projects should be handled through other mechanisms. HB 546 was reported favorably on a 21-0 vote. Finally, House Bill 605, a technical corrections and update bill for the local economic relief grant program, was amended by PHS 1 and discussed as expanding eligibility, including to the Delta Regional Authority and certain local-affiliated applicants; the transcript cuts off before the final vote on HB 605.

Transcript Highlights:

• If we're relying solely on ride-share.
• going to be a ride-share available to get home?
• And there were a couple comments about, or a couple questions about, ride-share services.
• I personally would like to see maybe the state and the locals take an even share of that.
• I think local property tax payers and local cities should be paying their share.

Summary: The committee met as a study subcommittee on fixed-route public transportation and first approved the December 11 minutes. It then heard detailed presentations from transit leaders in Grand Forks, Bismarck/Mandan, and Fargo about their systems, including route structures, paratransit service, ridership trends, fare changes, funding sources, fleet replacement needs, and operational challenges. Grand Forks described Cities Area Transit’s 17 routes, university shuttle service, expanded paratransit coverage, a 2025 fare increase, and rising costs for labor, fuel, parts, and new buses. Bismarck/Mandan’s Bisman Transit outlined its fixed-route and paratransit operations, recent service expansions approved for April 1, fare structure, ridership recovery since COVID, and major funding streams including mill levies, federal grants, and new local sales tax revenue. Fargo’s MATBUS representative emphasized the importance of continued state support for urban fixed-route transit. Members asked extensive questions about cost per ride, fare increases, school transportation, veteran service partnerships, app-based ticketing, local funding formulas, and whether ride-share or microtransit could replace fixed routes. Transit officials said fixed-route service remains essential because it provides reliable capacity, supports jobs and access to services, and preserves federal funding tied to public transit operations. They also said paratransit is costly but necessary for riders with disabilities, and that vehicle and maintenance costs have risen sharply. Minot’s transit superintendent added context on the state’s existing transit aid formula, explaining that it is weighted more toward rural and paratransit providers and that urban fixed-route systems are seeking a separate, dedicated funding source rather than changes to the current formula. The committee also heard public testimony from North Dakota Protection & Advocacy supporting both fixed-route and paratransit service for disabled riders, and from Minot staff on refurbished buses, CDL driver recruitment, and why the agency is not pursuing full electric buses. Near the end, members discussed whether to recommend additional state funding for the four urban fixed-route systems. A motion passed to have Legislative Council prepare a summary of the subcommittee’s activities for inclusion in the Government Finance Committee’s report to Legislative Management. Members then continued discussing possible recommendations, including a separate funding source for urban fixed-route transit and whether the four urban systems should meet to develop a proposed amount.

Transcript Highlights:

• May from the University of California, Davis, to share some welcoming remarks.
• Milk sales are actually more than double that share in natural channels.
• I appreciate you sharing about Beam Circular.
• I'm so honored and happy... ...to be here and to share our research.
• I appreciate you for taking the time to share.

Summary: The hearing of the Select Committee on Alternative Protein Innovation was held at UC Davis and focused on how alternative proteins can support California agriculture, the bioeconomy, and farmers. Opening remarks from UC Davis leaders and committee members emphasized the university’s food science, fermentation, and sustainability strengths, and the state’s prior investments of $5 million for UC alternative protein research and an additional $1 million for ICAMP. Members framed the topic as a way to grow new markets, keep more value in-state, and address climate, food security, and commercialization challenges. The first panel featured Sana Beg of the Plant-Based Foods Institute, who argued that California agriculture and alternative proteins are complementary, not competing, and stressed that farmers are essential to the sector. She highlighted the need for ingredient processing capacity, technical assistance for growers, and predictable demand through public procurement, including schools, hospitals, and state facilities. Committee members asked about financing and market development, and Beg said guaranteed loans, grants, and state- and USDA-backed support could help de-risk investment and build the supply chain. The second panel focused on research and development. Beam Circular described the circular bioeconomy in the San Joaquin Valley, including efforts to turn agricultural residues into higher-value products, build shared infrastructure, and expand workforce training. ICAMP and UC ANR described UC Davis-centered research, pilot facilities, and a proposed plant innovation center to bridge lab-scale work to commercial manufacturing. USDA researchers discussed using byproducts such as brewer’s spent grain, tomato pomace, lima beans, and chickpeas for new food ingredients. Members repeatedly emphasized the importance of public R&D funding, consumer acceptance, and food-grade scale-up facilities. The final panel highlighted company perspectives from Optimized Foods and Blue Diamond Growers. Optimized Foods described using fungi fermentation to convert almond hulls, cocoa waste, and tomato pomace into protein-rich ingredients and stabilized nutrients. Blue Diamond outlined its grower cooperative model, sustainability practices, almond ingredient portfolio, and the Sacramento almond innovation center. No formal votes were taken; the hearing was informational, with discussion centered on research, commercialization, infrastructure, and market-building for California-grown alternative protein products.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> in grief and outrage but with a shared in grief and outrage but with a shared commitment<00:03:34.959
• In addition, I just want to share, as we move to the last slide, I have some data to share with you in
• In addition, I just want to share, as we move to the last slide, I have some data to share with you in
• It might bring some resource cost sharing if they're sharing a building.
• to it if some resource cost sharing to it if they're<01:18:34.840><c> sharing</c><01:18:35.199><c> a

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We've been asked today to please share an overview of federal...
• What is different is the cost sharing.
• What is different is the cost sharing.
• You've heard already, you've shared, some of you have shared yourselves, some of these very compelling
• The state has a data-sharing mandate that's been on the books since 2021.

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Senate and Assembly Health Committees focused on the “cost of uncertainty” in health coverage, access, and affordability amid federal policy changes. Opening remarks from committee leaders and members emphasized that California’s gains under the Affordable Care Act and Health for All policies—high coverage rates, consumer protections, and lower uninsured rates—are now threatened by federal rollbacks, including the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits and H.R. 1. Members repeatedly cited rising premiums, skipped care, medical debt, and the risk of coverage losses, especially for low-income Californians, workers, seniors, and immigrant communities. The first panel featured federal policy and state implementation experts, including Don Joyce, Jessica Altman of Covered California, and Elizabeth Lansberg of HCAI’s Office of Health Care Affordability. Testimony described the ACA’s coverage expansions and the current federal threats: shorter open enrollment, more verification requirements, loss of enhanced subsidies, and changes affecting immigrants and preventive coverage. Covered California reported that average monthly premiums could nearly double without the subsidies, new enrollment is down sharply, and more consumers are shifting into bronze plans with higher deductibles. HCAI explained its affordability strategy through spending targets, consolidation review, and primary care investment, while members asked about the impact of federal cuts on provider taxes, uncompensated care, and whether California can sustain coverage without new revenue. The second panel, with UC Berkeley Labor Center’s Miranda Dietz and California Health Care Foundation’s Christoph Stremikis, broadened the discussion to statewide cost drivers and consumer impacts. They highlighted that more than half of Californians under 65 rely on job-based coverage, yet premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs have risen faster than wages. They also pointed to medical debt, administrative waste, market consolidation, and underinvestment in primary care as major drivers of unaffordability. Members asked about the 25% of health spending that does not improve patient care, the role of fraud versus administrative friction, the effect of cost growth targets on workers, and the need for preventive care and possible revenue solutions. The hearing then moved to a third panel on human impacts, beginning with testimony from a Central Valley promotora describing how families are choosing lower-tier coverage, struggling with diabetes care, and facing higher premiums after subsidy losses.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've been asked today to please share an overview of federal...
• What is different is the cost sharing.
• What is different is the cost sharing.
• You've heard already, you've shared, some of you have shared yourselves, some of these very compelling
• Thank you for the opportunity to share it today.

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Senate and Assembly Health Committees focused on the cost of federal instability for California health coverage, access, and affordability. Opening remarks from members of both houses emphasized that California’s coverage gains under the Affordable Care Act are now threatened by federal policy changes, including the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits, H.R. 1, and new federal regulatory actions. Members repeatedly cited rising premiums, skipped care, medical debt, and the risk that low-income, immigrant, and working Californians could lose coverage or be pushed into less comprehensive plans. The first panel reviewed the federal landscape and state response. Don Joyce described the ACA’s coverage expansions and warned that H.R. 1, regulatory changes, and broader federal retrenchment could reduce coverage and weaken meaningful benefits. Covered California Executive Director Jessica Altman said the loss of enhanced premium tax credits is driving major affordability problems, with average monthly premiums projected to rise sharply and enrollment already down, especially among middle-income consumers. HCAI’s Elizabeth Lansberg explained the Office of Health Care Affordability’s role in slowing spending growth, monitoring consolidation, and setting spending targets, including lower targets for high-cost hospitals and new primary care investment goals. Members asked about bronze plans, high-cost hospitals, administrative burdens, provider taxes, and whether federal advisory changes could affect required benefits such as immunizations. The second panel examined population impacts and cost drivers. UC Berkeley Labor Center’s Miranda Dietz said most Californians get coverage through employers, Medi-Cal, or Covered California, and that affordability problems are widespread across all groups. She projected that California could have up to 2 million more uninsured residents by 2030, largely from Medi-Cal losses, and said higher premiums reduce wages and increase medical debt. Christoph Stremakis of the California Health Care Foundation highlighted survey data showing widespread concern about medical bills, skipped care, and medical debt, and argued that a large share of spending is wasted through administrative complexity, inflated prices, and underinvestment in prevention. Committee members pressed the panel on whether California can sustain coverage without new revenue, how cost-growth targets affect workers and families, how medical debt relief programs like Los Angeles County’s could be expanded, and how OCA can address uncompensated care, consolidation, and prior authorization burdens.

Transcript Highlights:

• of our fair share spending.
• This year, we're estimating fair share surtax to generate about $2.7 billion in revenues.
• and disclose exactly how those fair share dollars are spent.
• It is paid for this year as a combination of fair share dollars and I-Lottery.
• President, I know that my good friend shares the desire that I have for program integrity.

Keywords: 1212, all