Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> of</c><02:10:15.000><c> the</c> You heard the discussion of the You heard the discussion of the
• </c> and thanks thanks for the discussion. and thanks thanks for the discussion.
• That was a great discussion.
• Chairman, I did hear that discussion.<02:21:13.360><c> Uh</c> discussion. Uh discussion.
• discussed across the regularly discussed across the legislative<03:27:35.000><c> and</c><03:27:35.240

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We believe that discussing pseudoscience should not be in the Rules of Evidence, so allowing it into
• Er as well, as well as people who discuss best practices from California and other states, as well as
• pseudo science should not be discussing pseudo science should not be in<01:00:36.480><c> the</c><01:
• </c><01:03:46.440><c> in</c> the bill ineffective as I discussed in the bill ineffective as I discussed
• We have heard this bill before in extensive discussion. It’s okay, we’ll move on.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs heard Senate Bill 1322, SD2, HD1, a comprehensive measure revising Hawaii’s mental health code. The bill would clarify emergency transportation, examination, and hospitalization procedures for people who may be mentally ill or suffering from substance abuse and deemed imminently dangerous, expand notice requirements, allow certain information-sharing for assisted community treatment petitions, and add liability protections for emergency responders and providers. The Department of the Attorney General supported the bill as a collaborative update to the law, while the Department of Health asked for a copy of provider-generated emergency transport documentation within five days for data and planning purposes. Testimony was sharply divided. Queen’s Health System, Hawaiʻi Pacific Health, HHSC, and the Institute for Human Services supported the measure or parts of it but requested amendments, including clarifying whether a second psychiatric exam is required, restoring a 72-hour rather than 48-hour stabilization window, and adjusting where patients are taken when an MEO cannot be reached. The ACLU of Hawaiʻi strongly opposed the bill, arguing it weakens due process and civil liberties, especially around involuntary commitment, assisted community treatment, emergency transport by police, and reduced procedural safeguards; it urged the committee to hold the bill and consider an interim working group. Louie E.K. of the Hawaiʻi Disability Rights Center also opposed the bill, focusing on immunity from negligence, the use of police for transport, and the reduction of a three-provider review to one in state-hospital treatment orders. Other testimony included support from an individual who said the bill could improve mental health care delivery amid provider shortages, and a comment from Hawaiʻi Health and Harm Reduction Center warning that the substance use portion of the bill lacks evidence of effectiveness and could be misused. In response to committee questions, the Attorney General’s office said the measure was developed with input from multiple stakeholders, including state agencies, hospitals, the ACLU, HHSC, and IHS, and that it aims to make assisted community treatment more accessible and effective by streamlining the legal process and improving consequences for noncompliance. No vote or final action was taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> into that, the peer report will discuss into that, the peer report will discuss that<00:09:13.839
• I'm happy to discuss that as well.
• So, all three of those were the information we just discussed.
• So, slide 14, just discussed.
• </c> where they're very uh cost-sensitive. where they're very uh cost-sensitive.

Keywords: Appropriations - Room 216, 14 January, 2026; 1:00 PM, 925, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In your discussion, you mentioned that some of the children you see have developmental disorders.
• In your discussion, you Chairman.
• In your discussion, you mentioned<00:17:38.559><c> that</c><00:17:39.200><c> some</c><00:17:39.440><c
• We're we're actively having<01:44:53.199><c> discussions.
• We started uh those having discussions.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Kuby, all colleagues in the discussion of this proposal, I'd like to explain my vote.
• Yeah, as I recall from our discussion in Appropriations Committee and Transportation Committee, this
• Instead, we have this appropriation that we're discussing today.
• headaches continually, and I just thought it was part of life until I discovered that I was fluoride sensitive

Summary: The Arizona Senate convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the 4-H pledge led by the Yuma County 4-H Ambassadors, followed by recognition of guests for National Ag Day, World Hearing Day, a visiting doctor of the day, food truck business owners, and members of Sandy Corps VFW Post 1433 for its 100th anniversary. Senators also presented proclamations honoring World Hearing Day and the VFW post’s century of service. The chamber then handled routine business, including a temporary committee appointment and the reading of messages and committee reports into the journal. The floor then took up a series of third-reading bills, mostly transportation and public safety appropriations. SB 1062, 1063, 1064, 1065, 1088, 1154, 1156, 1157, 1204, 1207, 1245, 1250, 1455, 1457, and 1461 all passed, with several members explaining votes in support of road projects, tribal road needs, veteran services, border security, or workforce health care training, while opponents argued many appropriations should come from other funding sources or were unnecessary, especially the public safety and border-related measures. SB 1798 also passed with bipartisan support after senators praised it as a FAFSA awareness and student opportunity measure. One bill failed: SB 1019, relating to bottled water systems and water fluoridation, was defeated 14-11 after extended debate over public health benefits versus concerns about fluoridation safety and informed consent. After the votes, HB 2110 was withdrawn from the Education Committee and referred to Regulatory Affairs and Government Efficiency. The Senate then announced committee meetings for March 23 and adjourned until Monday, March 23, 2026, at noon.

Transcript Highlights:

• All colleagues in the discussion of this proposal, you'd like to explain your vote.
• Yeah, as I recall from our discussion in appropriations committee and transportation committee, this
• Instead, we have this appropriation that we're discussing today.
• headaches continually, and I just thought it was part of life until I discovered that I was fluoride sensitive

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion?
• Any other discussion?
• Any other discussion?
• Any other discussion?
• Any other discussion?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Policy Committee opened a hearing on HB 748, which would establish a local education freedom account (EFA) program. The prime sponsor, Rep. Kevin Verville, described the bill as enabling legislation that would let local voters decide whether to create a local EFA program by petition and ballot vote, with a 60% threshold to approve or repeal it. He argued that public education is about funding rather than a specific school building, said the proposal would expand parental choice, and cited Deerfield’s move from a single high school option to multiple tuitioned options as an example of local flexibility. Verville said the local EFA would be funded at twice the state adequacy amount, with the district matching the state portion, while other aid categories such as free and reduced meals, English language learner, and special education aid would not be doubled. He said students using a local EFA would still count in average daily membership, that unspent EFA funds would revert to the district, and that the bill would prohibit double-dipping with other scholarship or EFA programs. He also said special education services would remain under district discretion and that local EFA participants would still take statewide assessments for accountability. Committee members pressed him on several issues, especially special education, transportation, and fairness. Rep. Woodcock and Rep. Murray asked whether districts would still have to provide special education and transportation services if a student used a local EFA; Verville responded that special education would remain in the local district at district discretion, while transportation would generally become the family’s responsibility unless already required in an IEP. Rep. Cornell raised an equity concern about no income eligibility cap, asking whether higher-income families should receive the same public support; Verville replied that New Hampshire does not means-test public education and that the local EFA is a public funding mechanism, not a tuition subsidy that would cover full private-school costs. No vote or committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• and we are in parties are in discussion and we are in discussion<00:57:58.119><c> about</c><00:57:58.359
• </c><01:32:58.000><c> to</c> and historic sites with sensitivity to and historic sites with sensitivity
• </c><02:06:30.159><c> about</c> there's been a lot of discussion about there's been a lot of discussion
• </c><02:06:39.840><c> on</c> there's a lot of discussion on there's a lot of discussion on protecting
• </c><03:06:20.319><c> and</c> measures that we have to discuss and measures that we have to discuss and

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several measures. On HB 211 relating to stream maintenance, DLNR supported the intent but requested amendments to clarify that responsibility for removing abandoned property rests with the entity that has jurisdiction or ownership of the stream, and asked for appropriations to help cover cleanup costs. Members discussed existing county authority to clean streams and then seek reimbursement from private owners, and the City and County of Honolulu’s written testimony was noted as arguing the bill conflicts with a federal court stipulation requiring notice and storage of personal property before disposal. On HB 502 relating to land use, OPSD and the Land Use Commission supported the bill’s intent but raised concerns about the short timeline and the need for rule changes, with OPSD recommending a more permanent county plan-based district boundary amendment process instead of a temporary one. The Department of Agriculture asked counties to make concurrent revisions to ordinances and rules affecting agricultural land partitioning. Testimony also noted the bill is aimed at legacy agricultural subdivisions and would require Land Use Commission rulemaking. On HB 510 relating to declaration of water shortage and emergency, DLNR and the Board of Water Supply strongly supported the measure, saying it would give CWRM a more timely tool to respond to emergencies outside designated water management areas and would require rulemaking, permit classifications, and criteria for declaring shortages. In response to opposition concerns from the Land Use Research Foundation and the Hawaii Farm Bureau, DLNR said the rulemaking process would allow public input and that permit classifications could help balance agricultural and other water uses. On HB 511 relating to public lands, DLNR, the Department of Agriculture, and Hawaii Farm Bureau supported removing the survey requirement before setting aside public lands between state agencies, saying it would speed Act 90 transfers and save time and money, though one testifier cautioned against misuse of agricultural lands. No votes were taken during the excerpted portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• We know that it is a continuing discussion. It says it in our floor report.
• And I think that that's really shaped the discussions that we've had.
• We look forward to those discussions.
• Getting it right requires thoughtful discussion, transparency, and time.
• Jackson, respectively, for helping guide these discussions.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee met to consider the 2026 Budget Act, which leaders said was the negotiated compromise with the Senate and was expected to move to the floor that evening. Opening remarks emphasized that the plan balances the budget over two years, reduces the structural deficit, and builds reserves, while also protecting core services in the face of federal cuts. Jason Sisney outlined the legislative budget framework and the likely floor bills, including AB 109, SB 110, SB 122, and SB 125. Department of Finance representative Eric Khali said the administration appreciated the two-year balanced approach and supported the modification in SB 122, while noting the package uses additional revenues and new spending to soften or reject some proposed cuts. Most of the discussion focused on major spending areas. Members and subcommittee chairs highlighted protections and additions for health care and human services, including rejecting the proposed Medi-Cal asset limit change, delaying premium increases, restoring clinic and dental funding, supporting distressed hospitals and county indigent care, and expanding county eligibility staffing to handle H.R. 1-related workload. Education members described record or expanded support for TK-12 schools, child care, special education, community colleges, teacher recruitment, and higher education, including a change to extend Cal Grant eligibility to age 30 for some community college students. Housing and homelessness funding was increased for HAP, multifamily housing, and the low-income housing tax credit, while public safety members pointed to investments in victims’ services, restorative justice, and prison closure savings. Several members also raised concerns or priorities tied to the budget deal. Some praised the package as a moral document that protects vulnerable Californians, immigrant communities, LGBTQ residents, seniors, and people with disabilities. Others noted unresolved issues, including the MCO tax’s impact on districts, the need for more support for local journalism, arts, biotech R&D incentives, transit and GGRF-related concerns, and the need for continued work on Prop. 98 and long-term fiscal resilience. The vice chair cautioned that despite the current progress, the state remains vulnerable to revenue volatility and warned that the budget should build more resilience against a possible downturn. No formal vote was taken in the portion provided, but the committee was preparing the budget package for floor action and final negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• It depends on which population you're discussing.
• Item four discusses staffing challenges at CDCJ.
• Item seven discusses strategic fiscal review findings.
• We've had those discussions before.
• Item three discusses the agency's staffing and turnover.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Please help inform our discussion today with your public testimony on these items.
• The discussion then shifted to CalPADS data.
• The discussion turned to the LAO's question and point about the fixed tier rate.
• You're able to come forward now on any of these issues that we just discussed.
• Next week, our board will discuss a new strategic enrollment management framework.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on three education budget items: the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP), differentiated assistance/statewide system of support, and universal school meals plus kitchen infrastructure grants. For ELOP, the Department of Finance described the Governor’s proposal to provide $4.7 billion ongoing Proposition 98 funding and $62.4 million to set a minimum Tier 2 rate of $1,800 per pupil. The LAO recommended instead fixing the Tier 2 rate at $1,579, and committee members questioned how the rate was determined, how much funding is actually spent, and whether overlapping funding from ELOP, ACEs, and 21st Century programs is being tracked. CDE said ELOP is showing positive attendance and math outcomes, but some requested data will not be available until mid-2027; members also raised concerns about double-funding, transparency, and whether middle and high school students are being equitably served. On differentiated assistance, CCEE outlined the statewide system of support and the various tiers of universal, targeted, supplemental, and intensive assistance. Finance explained the Governor’s proposal to replace the current DA structure with a more stable universal and targeted assistance model, funded at $131.9 million ongoing, with a three-year support cycle aligned to LCAP and ESSA timelines and broader State Board authority to revise eligibility criteria. The LAO objected to considering the proposal before the State Board finalizes the new performance criteria, and committee members expressed concern that moving to a three-year cycle could delay support for LEAs that newly fall into need mid-cycle. There was also discussion about whether the proposal would weaken subgroup-based equity guardrails or give the State Board too much discretion over who qualifies for support. For school meals and kitchen infrastructure, Finance proposed $1.8 billion ongoing for universal meals and an additional $100 million ongoing plus $100 million one-time for a fourth round of kitchen infrastructure and training grants. The LAO recommended rejecting the new kitchen grant round because prior rounds are still being spent and the unmet need is not yet clear. CDE said prior investments have improved meal participation, efficiency, and menu variety, but many schools still lack the facilities for scratch cooking and face construction, electrical, and procurement barriers. Members asked for more data on how prior grants were used, which schools are benefiting, and whether funds could also support lower-cost food access strategies such as pantries, while noting federal restrictions on some meal-service innovations.

Transcript Highlights:

• When we discussed the problem with them and discussed the bills and the transparency measures that we're
• That had been a topic of discussion.
• that you discussed with Mr.
• discussed in our follow-up discussions.
• Chair, well, not a question, but discussion. We'll go to discussion when we're done.

Bills: SB1003, SB1060, SB1134, SB1275, SB1327, SB1429, SB1618, SB1634, SB1654, SB1803, SCR1002, SCR1005, SCR1023, SCR1027

Keywords: election, canvass, certification, ballot tabulation, write-in candidates, registration, voting procedures, voter registration, temporary absence, absentee voting, residency, military voters, overseas voters, election law, Arizona Revised Statutes, political signs, campaign materials, public safety, municipal regulation, veterans

Transcript Highlights:

• This includes the lack of... ...and it's been a huge topic of discussion.
• Similar to the discussions last year, we acknowledge that the discussion,...
• Similar to the discussions last year, we acknowledge that the discussion, Thereafter.
• I know there’s been discussion.
• But there's a lot to be discussed further.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And the last follow-up I have, you know, reciprocity has been a very hot topic discussed when it comes
• </c><00:32:08.240><c> in</c><00:32:08.559><c> this</c> point of of this discussion in this point of of
• this discussion in this amendment<00:32:09.039><c> to</c><00:32:09.279><c> begin</c><00:32:09.360><c
• In any of the discussions or testimony in the House, I'm referring to line four where it used the word
• I'll narrow my comments to some of the prior discussion here.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any comments or discussion? No. Okay.
• </c><00:00:56.719><c> general's</c> discussion with the attorney general's discussion with the attorney
• </c> Any comments or discussion? No. Okay. Any comments or discussion? No. Okay.
• Any<01:15:50.000><c> discussion?</c> Any discussion? Any discussion? &gt;&gt; Sure. &gt;&gt; Sure.
• Any other discussion? discussion? discussion?

Bills: SB2033, SB2487, SB2497, SB2471, SB2829

Keywords: renewable energy, grid-ready homes, interconnection process, electric utility, energy independence, surcharge, customer access, energy storage, smart inverters, Public Utilities Commission, PUC, electric utility rates, ratemaking, performance-based regulation, performance-based incentives, performance incentive mechanisms, revenue adjustment mechanisms, cost control mechanisms, reward and penalty mechanisms, alternative ratemaking

Summary: The committee first reconvened on SB 2471 and SB 2829, both relating to the powers of artificial persons. After discussion with the Attorney General’s office and a prior Q&A period, the chair said the committee would defer decision-making again, with the intent to return with amended versions of both bills that could gain support from the administration and its lawyers. The measures were deferred to Tuesday, February 10, 2026, in Conference Room 229 at 9:30 a.m. The committee then took up SB 2180, relating to deposits of public funds. Members noted late testimony from the prior day’s joint hearing with the Housing Committee and moved to pass the bill out with amendments, including a defective effective date. The motion carried unanimously among those voting: the chair, vice chair, Senator Lamosao, and Senator Awa voted aye; Senator McKelvey was excused. The measure was adopted. A joint hearing followed on SB 2033, relating to renewable energy and a streamlined grid-ready homes interconnection process. The PUC supported the bill’s intent but raised concerns about the time, resources, and stakeholder input needed to establish the proposed process, and asked for clarification of terms such as “grid-ready homes” and the role of HERA. Hawaiian Electric said it supported the intent but opposed the proposed process and HERA funding use. The Hawaii Solar Energy Association strongly supported the bill, arguing that faster interconnection is needed to meet rooftop solar goals and lower costs over time. Testimony totaled 27 in support, two in opposition, and four with comments. Members questioned costs, consumer protections, and whether the bill would burden low- and moderate-income households; the bill’s supporters said amendments could clarify the definition of grid-ready homes and add guardrails, while acknowledging that upfront costs and interconnection costs would still need to be addressed.

Transcript Highlights:

• I know there's been discussion over the various versions, and we just want to reiterate that we believe
• We recognize this is very sensitive. I want to make sure we understand the process.
• Right, well, I'm not directly involved in any of these suits or discussions, but I work with all of the
• I think the discussion today on this...
• Now, during that process, was there ever any discussion of age on it?

Bills: HB128, HB34, HB128, HB621, HB748, HB2259, HB2960, HB3113, HB4749, SB835

Keywords: heat illness prevention, workplace safety, administrative penalties, advisory board, employee protection, HB 128, sister city, sister-city agreement, international exchange, municipal diplomacy, local government, state agency, political subdivision, foreign adversary, China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Taiwan, major non-NATO ally

Transcript Highlights:

• AROUND THE COUNTRY ARE RUNAWAY YOUTH FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM AND I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND I AM SENSITIVE
• DURING OUR DISCUSSION WE TALKED ABOUT HOW THERE WILL BE MOMENTS WHERE WE WERE JUST NOT GOING TO SEE EYE
• AS ALWAYS I AM HAPPY TO HAVE A GOOD CONVERSATION WITH YOU ONE-ON-ONE TO DISCUSS THOSE TOPICS WHEN THAT
• I COME TO YOU TODAY TO THIS DISCUSSION WITH TWO DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES.
• BEYOND THE EDUCATION AS WE DISCUSSED, THE PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE ARE VAGUE AND OUTDATED.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Speaker, I ask to suspend the rules for a time-sensitive resolution. All those in favor say I.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, DHR has the authority to redact and make sure it's not sensitive in nature.

Bills: HB340

Keywords: child protection, due process, family preservation, child custody, human resources, 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Similar to the discussions last year, we acknowledge that the discussion,... program costs.
• Similar to the discussions last year, we acknowledge that the discussion, Thereafter.
• I know there's been discussion.
• We really appreciate the discussion we've had today.
• But there's a lot to be discussed further.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held a May Revision hearing covering several health-related budget proposals and broader concerns about the state’s budget structure. The Chair opened by praising some May Revision changes, such as added health IT funding, county administration support tied to Medi-Cal changes, a delay in Medi-Cal cuts for some lawfully present immigrants, and additional support for Covered California subsidies, while criticizing proposed increases in Medi-Cal premiums, changes to senior eligibility, the lack of a Medi-Cal dental solution, and other reductions affecting counties, mobile crisis units, workforce incentives, and physician shortages. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the state’s budget condition remains weak despite progress on the structural deficit, and the Department of Finance said the May Revision uses a mix of reductions, reforms, revenue proposals, and fund shifts to cut out-year deficits. The committee first heard Department of State Hospitals proposals, including adjustments to county bed billing authority, contract exemption language for online clinical/pharmacy subscriptions, reversion of unspent funds, a revised Metro Central Utility Plant replacement project, electronic health record implementation, and workforce development funded partly through Behavioral Health Services Act resources. DSH also described savings and realignments in incompetent-to-stand-trial and conditional release programs, including extending the independent placement panel program and shifting funds to support additional bed capacity and a mental health rehab center. Members asked about the use of BHSA funds for workforce programs, and the department said the proposal would replace General Fund support with BHSA reimbursements. The Emergency Medical Services Authority proposed funding for statewide behavioral health crisis response guidance and for enterprise system development, and the Department of Managed Health Care proposed modernization of its complaint system and claims-settlement data system to improve oversight and comply with AB 3275. The largest discussion centered on the administration’s BHSA spending plan under Proposition 1, including state-directed prevention, workforce, and other uses, plus General Fund offsets for existing programs. The LAO questioned whether some proposed offsets fit Proposition 1’s non-supplant and eligible-use requirements, while the administration argued the uses were consistent with the measure and that the state-directed share can be adjusted annually. The Commission for Behavioral Health’s proposals drew the most public and member concern. The administration proposed cutting the commission’s Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and reducing the Community Advocacy Program by $6.7 million, while redirecting BHSA dollars to other state purposes and direct services. Commissioners, advocates, and several members argued the cuts would weaken community voice, reduce support for underserved populations, and disrupt grants already in process; they also objected to using BHSA funds to backfill General Fund commitments. Public commenters, including youth, disability, behavioral health, LGBTQ, tribal, veteran, immigrant, and community-based organization representatives, overwhelmingly opposed the cuts and urged preservation of prevention, advocacy, mobile crisis, and innovation funding. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.