Transcript Highlights:

• thank you for your helpful testimony. thank you for your helpful testimony.
• I have sent you my written testimony I have sent you my written testimony ahead<00:39:07.120> of
• You heard testimony from another...
• <01:14:54.520> and of that is in my written testimony and of that is in my written testimony
• 10, and you know, the testimony of Mr. 10, and you know, the testimony of Mr.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Belton, thank you for that testimony.
• And thank you for your testimony.
• Mosley, thank you for your testimony today.
• What a relief. testimony thank you uh Senator Champion testimony thank you uh Senator Champion yeah<01
• Thank you so much for your testimony.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, um I appreciated the testimony. I'm not going to support the ought to pass.
• <00:07:49.480> I'm<00:07:49.600> not I appreciated the testimony.
• I'm not I appreciated the testimony.
• ><00:12:39.520> council<00:12:40.360> and testimony about the autism council and testimony
• <00:12:45.480> that and I think that from the testimony that and I think that from the testimony

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. testimony and then we'll have discussions and recommendations thank you good afternoon I do
• Public testimony will be limited to two minutes, and members will have three minutes or less to explain
• Now then, we've had a discussion and testimony already.
• And in fact, throughout this bill and the next bill, I have some testimony to share with you.
• Testimony. Testimony. Testimonies. Any final discussion? Testimony. Testimony. Any testimonies?

Bills: HB2155, HB2156, HB2162, HB2762, HB2791

Keywords: Arizona Beef Council, agriculture, market development, beef products, terminating council, livestock, compensation, funding, ranching, game and fish commission, wildlife, appointment, commission membership, Arizona Revised Statutes, food labeling, cultivated cells, cell-cultured products, consumer information, food safety, cell-cultured protein

Summary: The House Committee on Land, Agriculture, and Rural Affairs met for its first session, with members and staff introducing themselves before taking up committee-of-reference business and several bills. The committee first heard a presentation from the Arizona Beef Council, which described its checkoff-funded promotion, education, and research work for Arizona beef producers, including classroom materials, nutrition outreach, and ranch tours. After questions about how the program is funded and whether the state would lose its Arizona-retained share if the council were not continued, the committee voted to recommend continuing the council for eight years, until July 1, 2034. The committee then considered HB 2155, which also continued the Arizona Beef Council for eight years, and advanced it on a 7-1 vote. HB 2156, which appropriates money to the livestock compensation fund for wolf depredation losses, was amended to set the appropriation at $250,000 from the general fund in fiscal year 2027 and then passed 5-2, with supporters emphasizing rancher compensation and opponents questioning use of general funds and noting unused prior funding. HB 2162, which would require at least one Arizona Game and Fish Commission member to be a cattleman or rancher, drew testimony for and against but was ultimately held by the chair after discussion about representation, existing appointment structures, and rural interests. The committee also advanced two cell-cultured protein bills. HB 2762 would require a disclaimer on packaging for food derived from cultivated cells; supporters argued for consumer transparency and opponents said federal labeling rules already apply and state-specific requirements could create confusion. It passed 5-3. HB 2791 would prohibit the sale of cell-cultured protein for human consumption and make violations a felony; supporters raised safety, innovation, and agricultural concerns, while opponents argued it would criminalize federally approved products and restrict consumer choice. That bill also passed 5-3. The committee adjourned after completing its agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• Do our rules talk about when you can submit testimony for a bill hearing?
• Do our rules talk about when you can submit testimony for a bill hearing?
• It was uh testimony Friday and Sat.
• The testimony will be in reschedu it.
• They will testimony over the weekend.

Keywords: House streaming session for Friday, January 23, 2026, 957, house, all

Summary: The House convened with 118 members present, opened with prayer, and proceeded through the day’s desk work. The clerk read introductory House bills 445 through 488, which were first read and referred to the appropriate committees, along with introductory House joint resolutions and several bond initiatives referred to Appropriations. A letter reassigning House Bill 149 to Economic Matters was also journalized. Committee announcements noted that several standing committees would not meet that day, while the House Rules and Executive Nominations Committee would meet virtually on Monday at 1:00 p.m. because of the snowstorm; the fiscal briefing was moved to 4:00 p.m. on Zoom. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on questions about the Rules Committee hearing process for House Bill 488, the congressional redistricting bill. Members asked about witness sign-up timing, whether the weekend extension was allowed, and whether there were conflicts of interest in the process. The parliamentarian and Speaker responded that the chair has discretion, that testimony sign-up had been extended through Friday, Saturday, and Sunday due to weather, and that if there were no electricity on Monday the hearing would be rescheduled. The Speaker also said the fiscal note for HB 488 would be available before the hearing. The rest of the session consisted largely of caucus, delegation, and guest announcements. Members announced upcoming meetings for the Waterman’s Caucus, Legislative Jewish Caucus, Women’s Caucus, LGBTQ+ Caucus, and a fire/EMS coalition, and noted the cancellation of an in-person Holocaust Remembrance event in favor of a virtual format. Guests and interns were recognized in the gallery, including representatives from the National Coalition of 100 Black Women, 100 Black Men of Charles County, Howard University students, and several student interns. The House also recognized the pages for their service and celebrated Delegate Marlon Amprey’s upcoming birthday. The chamber then adjourned until Monday, January 26 at 8:00 p.m., with the public again invited to submit testimony over the weekend.

Transcript Highlights:

• Each witness will be allowed two minutes to present their testimony.
• No further testimony will be permitted.
• We travel around and do a lot of testimony like this.
• And thank you for your testimony today. It's very compelling.
• but not to provide two minutes' testimony.

Summary: The Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee heard several bills focused on AI, immigration-related health care protections, digital financial assets, and online cannabis/hemp sales. SB 69 by Senator McNerney would create an AI-focused team within the Department of Justice to build enforcement expertise on civil rights, public safety, and legal issues tied to AI. SB 81 by Senator Arreguín would codify hospital and health facility policies limiting disclosure of patient immigration status and restricting immigration enforcement access without a judicial warrant. SB 97 by Senator Grayson would update and clarify California’s digital financial assets licensing law. SB 243 by Senator Padilla would impose guardrails on AI companion chatbots, including disclosures, anti-addictive design limits, self-harm protocols, and a private right of action. SB 378 by Senator Wiener would allow civil penalties against online marketplaces that advertise illicit intoxicating hemp and unlicensed cannabis products. Testimony on SB 69 emphasized that California needs in-house AI enforcement expertise at the DOJ; supporters said AG offices generally lack tech-policy specialists, while members asked about the Attorney General’s role and noted the office was neutral. SB 81 drew broad support from nurses, immigrant advocates, hospitals, labor, and community groups, who argued that hospitals should remain safe places for care regardless of immigration status; there was no opposition. SB 97 was described as a technical cleanup bill with stakeholder consensus, and the main public comment focused on ensuring blockchain-based nonfinancial products are not unintentionally swept into the law. SB 243 generated the most debate. Supporters, including the mother of a Florida teen who died by suicide after interacting with a chatbot, urged stronger protections for minors and vulnerable users. Opponents argued the bill’s definitions were too broad and could capture general-purpose AI systems, and raised concerns about privacy, cost, and a private right of action. Committee members largely supported the bill’s intent and discussed the need for guardrails without stifling innovation. SB 378 was supported by cannabis workers, retailers, and local government representatives who said online sales of untested intoxicating hemp and illegal cannabis are harming public health and the legal market; opponents from hemp and tech groups argued the bill could sweep in lawful hemp businesses and that definitions need refinement. The committee ultimately passed SB 69, SB 81, SB 97, SB 243, and SB 378, with SB 81 and SB 243 amended, and all five bills were sent onward to their next committees.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll reserve your right to close, and we'll go to public testimony.
• And then whenever we heard the testimony with the Uber drivers, which made sense.
• We'll reserve your right to close, and we'll go to public testimony. Thank you.
• Thank you very much, ma'am, for your testimony.
• Thank you very much for your testimony.

Bills: HB2139, HB2253, HB3632, HB4171, HB4309, HB4508, SB760, SB1470

Keywords: voting access, polling place, disability, caretaker provisions, ballot delivery, election code, HB 2253, Texas Election Code, bond election, bond issuance, local government, election cancellation, disaster declaration, natural disaster, emergency election, county election officer, polling place notice, open meeting, election workers, voter safety

Transcript Highlights:

• I am concerned, though, in that we've heard a lot of testimony.
• Yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony on mute as well.
• Please go ahead and introduce yourself and proceed with your testimony.
• I know our time is short, so I will not give those in the testimony.
• We have gone through all of the testimony on time.

Bills: HF2436

Keywords: child welfare, economic assistance, child care, grant program, video security cameras

Transcript Highlights:

• Doctor, thank you for your testimony.
• Members, that is the last, uh, registered, uh, in testimony.
• Thank you so much for your testimony.
• And in closing, I would like to read you some testimony of Sam Collins.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Bills: HCR6

Keywords: Meals on Wheels, senior services, nutrition, community support, volunteerism

Transcript Highlights:

• Please introduce yourself, welcome, and begin your testimony.
• Please introduce yourself and begin your testimony. at Methodist Hospital in St. Louis Park.
• Thank you so much for your testimony and your expertise, and we're so sorry for your loss.
• So, please go ahead and begin your testimony. Hello, everybody.
• We took testimony on this bill March 26, so there's no more testimony.

Bills: HF1354, HF1901, HF2124, HF2130, HF2260, HF2099, HF104, HF134, HF1769

Keywords: public safety, school safety, active shooter, active shooter drill, violence prevention, threat reporting, anonymous tip line, See It, Say It, Send It, Minnesota Fusion Center, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, BCA, officer-involved death, missing person, endangered missing person, criminal background check, national background check, FBI fingerprint check, adult entertainment license, massage license, correctional facilities

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, please introduce yourself for the record and begin your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony. Please introduce yourself for the record and begin your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Public testimony is now closed on this bill, and we'll move on to member questions. Any members?
• <00:12:39.560> uh you thank you for your testimony uh you thank you for your testimony uh

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 2617, and first adopted a DE1 amendment. The bill, as amended, was presented as a major child care licensing reform that would narrow licensing to core health and safety requirements, reduce what supporters described as punitive or overly technical citations, and shift quality standards toward accreditation and professional organizations. The author also described the bill as a response to long-standing problems in the current licensing structure and county oversight of family child care. Public testimony was uniformly supportive. Child care providers and directors from Duluth, Rochester, and Esko said the current system penalizes minor clerical or cosmetic issues, creates inconsistent interpretations, and contributes to provider burnout and the child care shortage. They argued the bill would separate health-and-safety licensing from quality measures, which they said are better addressed through accreditation, coaching, and national standards. One testifier also said the bill would help with background study delays by creating a liaison to improve visibility into the process. Members asked about the difference between licensing and accreditation, how other states handle similar models, and how the bill would interact with the department’s licensing modernization work. The bill’s supporters said licensing would remain focused on foundational health and safety items such as ratios, background checks, hygiene, and facilities, while quality standards would be left to national organizations like NAEYC or the National Family Child Care Association. They cited Connecticut, Indiana, and Florida as examples of states using national standards in some form. The committee closed public testimony, took member questions, and the author renewed his motion to lay over House File 2617 as amended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, thank you for your testimony.
• All right, thank you for your testimony. All right, thank you for your testimony. John Scott.
• Okay, thank you for your testimony. Questions? Okay, thank you for your testimony.
• Okay, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Okay. We have some public testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you all. Mr.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:30:16.880> um um been trying to write my testimony um um been trying to write my testimony
• Uh, so we heard in in one of testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• I to change my testimony a little bit.
• Uh I am coming provide testimony today.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:39:17.520> Does thank you for your testimony. Does thank you for your testimony.
• testimony. Thank you for your time. testimony. Thank you for your time.
• testimony that I've emailed to you. testimony that I've emailed to you.
• Yes, you would get the respiratory depression. taking my testimony. taking my testimony.
• Stanch, for your testimony.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:23:42.960> Um testimony from Audabon. Um testimony from Audabon.
• >> testimony >> testimony >> testimony<01:30:55.760> of<01:30:57.120> what
• heard this testimony, I'll say it again. heard this testimony, I'll say it again.
• questions, thank you for your testimony questions, thank you for your testimony today. today. today
• testimony today. testimony today.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:19:27.400> thank<00:19:27.559> you testimony thank you testimony thank you anyone<00
• Thank you for your testimony.
• <01:20:20.520> thank 638 thank you for your testimony thank 638 thank you for your testimony
• <01:28:53.440> if thank you so much for your testimony if thank you so much for your testimony
• further thank you for your testimony further thank you for your testimony thank<02:27:36.359>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on House Bill 146, which would require longer retention and quicker disclosure of certain video recordings from traffic stops and similar motor vehicle violations when a citation is disputed. The prime sponsor described the bill as a response to a constituent who challenged a speeding ticket but could not obtain a cruiser video before it was deleted under the current 30-day retention practice. Supporters argued the bill is about fairness and access to potentially exculpatory evidence, and one member suggested a simple 60-day retention period might avoid confusion over different timelines. The sponsor also noted that the bill would not affect criminal cases and that victims and complainants should have access to the same evidence as law enforcement when a recording is relevant to a defense. Major Brendan Davey of the New Hampshire State Police testified in opposition. He said the proposal would create a different discovery standard for one type of evidence, could discourage agencies from adopting body-worn or cruiser cameras, and would add cost and administrative burden. He explained that the State Police already retain routine traffic-stop videos for at least 30 days, but keep videos much longer when complaints or possible litigation are involved, and said the current system balances efficiency with accountability. He also argued the underlying speeding case did not make the trooper video directly material to the citation, though he acknowledged the legislature could choose a longer blanket retention period if it wished. No vote was taken during the hearing. The committee then opened a public hearing on House Bill 638, which would allow people serving life without parole sentences to become eligible for a parole hearing at age 60 after serving at least 18 years, provided they have had no major conduct violations in the prior 10 years. The sponsor said the bill is intended to give a narrow second look to a small number of elderly prisoners, citing the high cost of incarceration and the health challenges of aging in prison. He emphasized that the bill would not automatically release anyone, would not apply to capital murder convictions under RSA 630:1, and would still allow victims to participate in the parole process. Testimony on HB 638 was mixed. Alexander Bailey, a survivor of violent crime and domestic violence advocate, supported the bill, saying many survivors favor rehabilitation, second chances, and restorative justice, and that people in prison often age faster and face serious health and safety problems. Another supporter, Russell Roy, began offering a personal story about crime, addiction, and violence in Concord, but the transcript cuts off before his full remarks. Committee members asked about why age 60 was chosen, how released individuals would support themselves, and whether victims or families would be consulted; the sponsor said 60 was meant to limit eligibility and reflect the health realities of prison, and that parole boards already consider support networks and victim input. No action or vote was taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• situated in after your testimony situated in after your testimony please<00:09:56.000> luckily
• <01:08:39.799> it as you mentioned in your testimony it as you mentioned in your testimony
• funding thank you for your testimony funding thank you for your testimony thank<02:46:21.600>
• One of them is a testimony from Dr.
• talks about in her written testimony talks about in her written testimony this<04:04:34.840>

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If you wish to give testimony, please fill out your witness card, sign it, and hand it over, excuse me
• Your signature is an affirmation that the testimony you give is true.
• We are here primarily for public testimony.
• All we're here for today is public testimony on the maps that have been filed.
• All we're here for today is public testimony on the maps that have been filed.

Summary: The Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee met on May 8, 2026, with eight members present and a quorum established. The chair reviewed public testimony procedures, emphasized that no votes would be taken that day, and explained witness card and media rules. The meeting was intended primarily for public testimony on filed maps and related matters. Before testimony began, Senator Carter raised concerns about the governor’s suspension of Louisiana’s congressional elections and asked for a representative from the Secretary of State’s office. No one from that office was present. Carter repeatedly asked about the status of early ballots and ballots already cast—whether they would be counted, preserved, or discarded—but the chair said he could not answer those questions and had not contacted the Secretary of State. The exchange centered on uncertainty over the handling of votes in the suspended congressional election, but no substantive answers were provided. The chair reiterated that the committee was there for public testimony on the maps and not to vote on any bills. No bills were presented or acted on in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that concludes my testimony.
• <00:56:46.160> uh all and that concludes my testimony uh all and that concludes my testimony
• I I we did sit and listen to testimony I I we did sit and listen to testimony yesterday<01:58:25.440
• <02:08:45.840> we I know I know that through testimony we I know I know that through testimony
• question um you cited some testimony question um you cited some testimony from<04:50:34.600>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first held a work session on HB 505, which would allow the sale of freeze-dried foods produced in homestead food operations. Members raised concerns about the bill’s broad language, especially the provision stating freeze-dried food would not be considered potentially hazardous. Several suggested narrowing the bill to specific products such as processed foods, berries, fruit, dairy products, ice cream, or vegetables, and requiring use of commercial freeze-drying equipment rather than dehydrators. There was also discussion of oxygen absorbers, moisture control, sanitation, and whether the issue should be handled in statute or rules. By the end of the discussion, members generally agreed the topic should be treated in a separate section of law rather than folded into the existing homestead food license, and the chair said the matter would be sent to the food safety subcommittee, with the possibility of a study committee if more time was needed. The committee then moved to HB 277, a technical correction to the animal cruelty statutes. Representative Bixby explained that current law refers to a “colt,” which applies only to male baby horses, leaving fillies unaddressed; the bill would replace “colt” with “foal” and make related wording changes so the restriction applies to any horse under 90 days old not being nursed by its dam. The New Hampshire Farm Bureau testified in support, saying the change was requested to clarify and modernize the statute and that the issue had been identified during work on related animal cruelty legislation. No votes were taken in the portion provided. The chair recessed the work session until 11:00 a.m. and announced that Representative Ktoa would take over the hearing on HB 277.

Transcript Highlights:

• good morning I have a written testimony good morning I have a written testimony may<01:28:28.080
• position thank you for your testimony position thank you for your testimony are<01:40:48.239>
• The committee has his testimony.
• testimony testimony okay<02:02:08.040> is<02:02:08.159> there<02:02:08.360> anyone<
• I'm not reading the whole testimony.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on House Bill 610, which would fold the Office of the Consumer Advocate into the Department of Energy rather than fully eliminate consumer advocacy functions. The prime sponsor argued the current office is small, funded by a special assessment on ratepayers, and duplicative of DOE work. He said moving the function to DOE would streamline energy policy review, reduce bureaucracy, and better focus the larger agency on lowering residential energy costs. He also disputed claims that the Consumer Advocate is independent, saying the office is appointed through a political process similar to DOE leadership. Committee members and the sponsor discussed whether the bill would actually relocate existing positions or replace them, and whether the Department of Energy would absorb the cost of the transferred staff. The sponsor said the fiscal note shows roughly a million-dollar reduction in both revenue assessment and spending, and that the bill would effectively reduce the office from five positions to three. He also defended his cost estimates for energy-code-related housing impacts and said the Consumer Advocate has sometimes supported policies he считает increase costs, such as energy-efficiency measures and building code changes. He argued the office should focus more on energy supply and generation, including natural gas and nuclear, rather than efficiency alone. Representative Wendy Thomas testified in opposition, saying the Consumer Advocate is an important, fair, and impartial voice for ratepayers and warning that the bill was fiscally irresponsible because the incumbent could still be owed salary and benefits if the office were repealed. She also said the bill’s drafting was confusing and that the Consumer Advocate’s role is to push back on utilities on behalf of consumers. Other members raised questions about whether the DOE would simply inherit the same political appointment structure and whether the bill would meaningfully lower bills. No vote was taken in the excerpt; the chair indicated additional testimony would follow, and the Department of Energy was present to answer questions.