Transcript Highlights:

• I am also willing to accept more regulatory... Thrilled, first of all.
• I am also willing to accept more regulatory risk, which is a word that I don't view it as a risk, but
• I am willing to take more regulatory risk because I'm there with my child.
• And they said, oh, the regulatory burden.
• that despite if they were at an accredited, exempted facility or one that, you know, is under the regulatory

Summary: The Human Services Subcommittee met and first took up HB 47, Child Care and Early Learning Providers, sponsored by Rep. McFarland. The bill was presented as an effort to reduce child care costs and regulatory burdens by exempting preschools from special tax assessments, moving teacher training and testing online and making it free, allowing abbreviated inspections for top providers, extending license-exempt status to employer-provided child care, and addressing an insurance issue affecting family child care homes. Members asked about DCF transparency, accreditation, background screening timelines, accountability for exempt facilities, and whether violations would still be searchable; McFarland said accreditation would still be required, DCF reporting and abuse hotlines would remain available, and the bill would not eliminate existing transparency for licensed providers. An amendment was adopted to add clarifying language and exempt certain DOD and Coast Guard child care facilities operated by DOD personnel. Several witnesses and members spoke in support, emphasizing workforce needs, affordability, and safety. HB 47 was reported favorably by a vote of 18-0. The committee then heard HB 259, which designates August 21 as Fentanyl Awareness and Education Day. Rep. Gerwig said the bill is intended to raise awareness of fentanyl’s dangers and overdose risks. Members spoke in strong support, citing fentanyl’s impact on families, youth, and first responders, and the need for education because fentanyl is often unknowingly ingested or mixed into other drugs. Gerwig also described a personal example involving a child exposed to fentanyl in a vacation rental. HB 259 was reported favorably by a vote of 17-0. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• And before it gets on the agenda, I suppose, what is the statutory or maybe even the regulatory requirement
• goods containing PFOS by the year 2030, taking legal action against manufacturers, establishing regulatory
• PFOA by John Truitt, Deputy Secretary of Regulatory Programs, is here from DEP. Mr.
• And again, there's not a regulatory standard on those items. It's just a test.
• But as the state regulatory entity, we go do the sampling to then tell EPA whether it should be a Superfund

Summary: The committee first received a Department of Environmental Protection presentation on Florida Forever and the sale or exchange of conservation lands. DEP described Florida Forever as the state’s main conservation land acquisition program, funded in recent years at high levels, and said most acquisitions since 2019 have been within the Florida Wildlife Corridor. The presentation also explained the legal process for disposing of conservation lands: requests are reviewed by the Acquisitions and Restoration Council, then the governor and cabinet decide whether land is no longer needed for conservation or whether an exchange provides a net conservation benefit. Senator Smith asked several questions about recent land-swap proposals, public notice, political influence, and whether any transactions had bypassed the usual sequence; DEP said applications can be withdrawn before ARC review, notice is posted seven days in advance, and the council and cabinet are the decision-makers. Senator Harrington asked about the difference between Florida Forever land sales and water management district surplus lands, and DEP said the reported 2.3 acres sold referred only to Florida Forever-funded projects. The committee then heard presentations from the Department of Health and DEP on PFAS and PFOA. DOH outlined what PFAS are, their common uses, possible health impacts, and ways Floridians can reduce exposure, including water filtration and avoiding certain products. DOH said it conducts well investigations, health consultations, fish consumption advisories, and monitoring in coordination with DEP and FWC. DEP followed with a more technical overview of PFAS regulation and cleanup, explaining federal testing and drinking-water standards, Florida’s provisional cleanup levels, and the state’s response at contaminated sites, including bottled water and filtration for affected residents. Senators asked about testing requirements for public systems and private wells, disposal of used filters, and how federal rulemaking and litigation could affect Florida’s standards; DEP said public systems are required to test under EPA monitoring rules, private wells are not directly required to test, and Florida may adopt its own standards if federal action does not occur by the statutory deadline. Finally, the committee took up SB 150, which would designate the flamingo as the state bird and the scrub jay as the state songbird. The sponsor argued the bill better reflects Florida’s identity and conservation values, noting the flamingo’s iconic status and the scrub jay’s status as a Florida-only species. Members asked lighthearted questions about mockingbirds, flamingo color, and feeding costs, and an appearance card was filed in support by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. The committee debated the bill briefly and then passed SB 150 favorably by roll call vote, with all members present voting yes except Senator DiCeglie, who was excused.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to talk mainly about sea level rise, but the regional board also has regulatory decisions
• Talk mainly about sea level rise, but the regional board also has regulatory decisions that concern ocean
• I think my colleagues asked some good regulatory questions for you. I concede my time. Thank you.
• They include things like something called the Bay Restoration Regulatory Integrated... ...restoration
• regulatory integrated team.

Summary: The hearing of the Select Committee on Sea Level Rise and the California Economy focused on infrastructure, pollution, climate resilience, public health, access, and economic impacts of sea level rise in California, with an emphasis on San Diego and the Bay Area. Chair Tasha Boerner Horvath opened by describing the committee’s purpose, the state’s sea level rise action planning, and the need for better monitoring and early warning systems. She also referenced her prior bills AB 66 and AB 72, which supported Scripps research on coastal bluff collapse warning capabilities. Assembly Members David Alvarez and Jessica Caloza later joined and emphasized that sea level rise affects not only coastal communities but inland areas as well, and that the issue should inform future legislative and budget decisions. In the first panel, Dr. Mark Merrifield of Scripps Institution of Oceanography described observed sea level rise of roughly 0.8 to 0.9 feet since the early 1900s, with acceleration expected by mid-century and potentially much greater rise by 2100 depending on emissions. He highlighted flooding, groundwater rise, beach and cliff erosion, salinization, and risks to transportation, sewage, ports, and national security. Dave Gibson of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board discussed how sea level rise affects wastewater systems, stormwater, contaminated sites, wetlands, and coastal groundwater basins, and said the board is requiring climate adaptation planning, updating stormwater permits, and seeking more flexible state permitting and mitigation tools. Members and witnesses also discussed the need for better mapping, more monitoring, and more state funding, especially if federal support from NOAA and other agencies declines. The second panel addressed public health, equitable access, and local economies. Ramon Chiras of Un Mar de Colores described how sea level rise, pollution, and access barriers threaten the Tijuana River Valley and Imperial Beach, especially for underserved communities and youth programs that rely on safe, welcoming access to the ocean. He stressed the cultural and spiritual importance of coastal access and the need for water safety and environmental education. Jessica Fane of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission explained that the Bay Area faces major economic exposure from sea level rise, citing a regional estimate of $96 billion in adaptation costs versus $230 billion in potential losses from inaction, and said BCDC is working with local governments under SB 272 on shoreline adaptation planning, funding, and regulatory innovation. Members discussed the tension between environmental permitting and the need to move projects faster, including the possibility of planned retreat in some areas and the use of simultaneous permitting and longer-term state authority to streamline adaptation work. In the final panel, Philip Gibbons of the Port of San Diego described the port’s climate adaptation efforts and its vulnerability assessments under AB 691. He said the port manages state tidelands, supports maritime commerce and recreation, and is already seeing flooding at king tides and during El Niño events, including storm-drain backflow and damage to bikeways and parks. He explained that future sea level rise could inundate major port areas and disrupt operations, underscoring the need for continued planning, mitigation, and infrastructure investment. The hearing did not take formal votes, but it concluded with a clear call for more science, funding, coordination, and regulatory streamlining to prepare California’s coast and nearby communities for worsening sea level rise impacts.

Transcript Highlights:

• states economic uh frameworks. states economic uh frameworks. uh<00:05:07.759> for<00:05:
• Number one is Utah's restructuring of the economic framework in 2021 and 2025, and that is covered on
• I'm not sure how the framework.
• over the last 5 development framework over the last 5 years.<00:08:59.680> um<00:09:00.480>
• development frameworks in those states. development frameworks in those states.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• reopening the entire budget framework. reopening the entire budget framework.
• And in doing so, it transforms the legal framework governing abortion care.
• Otherwise, the conduct would fall within a criminal framework.
• “Otherwise, the conduct would fall within a criminal framework.
• already enacted by property framework already enacted by this<04:30:23.279> legislature.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• reporting requirements for natural gas pipeline projects, relating to approval of contracts by the Regulatory
• Commission of Alaska, and in... ...projects, relating to approval of contracts by the Regulatory Commission
• projects, creating the Alaska Affordable Heating Fuel Fund, relating to approval of contracts by the Regulatory
• reporting requirements for natural gas pipeline projects, relating to approval of contracts by the Regulatory
• projects; creating the Alaska Affordable Heating Fuel Fund; relating to approval of contracts by the Regulatory

Keywords: 905, all

Transcript Highlights:

• combat abuse, our conference championed legislation A5582, which would create the Department of Regulatory
• This is needed since the elimination of the Governor's Office of Regulatory Reform, which occurred more
• combat abuse, our conference championed legislation A5582, which would create the Department of Regulatory
• This is needed since the elimination of the Governor's Office of Regulatory Reform, which occurred more
• THIS IS NEEDED SINCE THE ELIMINATION OF THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF REGULATORY REFORM WHICH OCCURRED MORE

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The joint Economic Development budget subcommittee meeting opened with introductions, review of subcommittee rules, and identification of the agencies to be discussed, including the Department of Economic Development, Urban Development Corporation, Alcohol and Beverage Control, Cannabis Management, and the Gaming Commission. The chairs also outlined broad budget priorities, including support for innovation hotspots, incubators, minority- and women-owned businesses, biomedical research, centers of excellence, advanced technology, workforce development, and grants tied to tourism, cultural institutions, public safety equipment, and food retail subsidies. Most member comments focused on small business conditions and economic development policy. Senators Borrello and Chan emphasized that small businesses are the backbone of the economy and argued for reducing taxes, utility costs, fines, permits, and regulations; Chan suggested a possible one-year utility tax holiday. Assembly Member Slater similarly criticized New York’s tax and regulatory climate and promoted legislation to create a Department of Regulatory Review and Economic Growth. Assembly Member Buttenschon discussed one-house proposals such as changes to small business stock ownership rules and a hardship savings account, while Assembly Member Bendett said county infrastructure funding should be increased substantially. Several members highlighted sector-specific investments. Senator Addabbo and Assembly Member Woerner stressed the importance of racing and gaming, including addiction treatment and recovery, integrity in racing, and stronger drug testing. Assembly Member Otis pointed to science and technology initiatives such as Micron, Empire AI, quantum research at Stony Brook, and broadband/digital inclusion through ConnectALL. Assembly Member Cashman supported investment in the Cornell Center for Food and Agriculture, and Senator Hinchey praised tourism matching grants, restaurant and farm food donation tax credits, and incentives for heat pumps and clean energy retrofits. No formal votes were taken. The meeting ended with staff continuing consultations with members and the chairs concluding the session.

Transcript Highlights:

• I then worked for an insurance regulatory firm for several years.
• It's also an opportunity to drop the advocacy role in favor of a regulatory role.
• I think we have a strong regulatory environment here.
• And that’s a delicate balance in an ever-changing regulatory environment.
• And that’s a delicate balance in an ever-changing regulatory environment.

Summary: The Committee on Director Nominations met with four members present and approved the prior minutes without objection. Chair Jay Kaufman outlined the committee’s role in reviewing executive nominations and explained the hearing process for three nominees: Mary Foote for the Office of Economic Opportunity, Debbie Johnston for the Department of Health Services, and Chuck Bassett. Foote did not appear for her hearing, and members discussed her absence and alleged omissions in her disclosure materials, including prior service with Planned Parenthood-related organizations. The committee then moved to reject her nomination, and the motion passed 3-2, recommending that the full Senate reject Mary Foote. Debbie Johnston, nominee to lead the Department of Health Services, appeared and gave an opening statement describing her Arizona background, prior Senate staff work, and more than 20 years with the Arizona Hospital and Health Care Association. She said her priorities at ADHS include rebuilding trust in public health licensing, improving stakeholder engagement, standardizing rulemaking communication, addressing alleged religious discrimination and retaliation concerns in licensing, and using technology and AI to improve efficiency. In questioning, senators pressed her on her management style, conflict-of-interest safeguards given her prior industry role, enforcement priorities, budget pressures, behavioral health and assisted living oversight, and the department’s response to COVID-19. Johnston said she would follow statutes, recuse herself from enforcement matters involving former contacts, and resign if directed to carry out an unlawful policy. She also said the department does not regulate therapy itself, only facilities, and that it would rely on legal counsel regarding the governor’s conversion-therapy executive order and related federal civil-rights allegations. Several senators focused on public health trust and the department’s pandemic response, with Johnston acknowledging concerns about closures, data collection, and communication during COVID-19 while saying she would review past after-action materials and be better prepared in the future. Public testimony from stakeholders in aging services and health care strongly supported her confirmation, praising her accessibility, responsiveness, and collaborative approach. After testimony, the vice chair moved to recommend Johnston’s confirmation to the full Senate. The roll call was underway when the transcript ended, with several members voting aye and one member expressing reservations about her not reviewing the pandemic after-action report before another crisis occurs.

Transcript Highlights:

• That may assist in evaluating how such a union framework would operate within the agency.
• You use the word framework a few times, and I just, if you could dig into that a little bit, when you
• about a framework for unionization, are you talking about things that can or cannot be bargained for
• Just trying to understand what that means when we talk about framework. Certainly, Senator.
• And so when I talk about framework, I'm talking about how that would inter...

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 2522 / H. 5909, which would amend state labor law to treat the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) as a public employer and allow its employees to seek collective bargaining rights. The chair explained the Article 48 initiative process, noted that no opponents or members of the public had signed up to testify, and said written testimony would be accepted through March 20. The hearing focused on whether CPCS staff should be brought within the public-sector bargaining framework and how that would interact with the agency’s statutory duties. Expert testimony began with an NCSL analyst, who gave a national overview of public employee bargaining rights and examples of public defender unions in other states and localities, including Colorado, New York City, Indianapolis, Cook County, Maryland, and Illinois. Department of Labor Relations officials then reviewed prior failed organizing efforts at CPCS and its predecessor, explaining that earlier petitions were dismissed because the agency was not considered a public employer under existing law. They said passage of the initiative would not automatically unionize employees, but would allow a union to petition for an election or written majority authorization, with normal unit-appropriateness and supervisory/confidential employee issues still to be resolved. CPCS Chief Counsel Anthony Benedetti testified that the agency supports providing information to the legislature but is not taking a position for or against unionization. He described CPCS’s statutory responsibilities, size, and current efforts to expand staffing after recent indigent-defense crises, and said any new bargaining framework would need to operate alongside the agency’s obligations to provide counsel. Proponents from SEIU Local 888 and allied labor groups argued that CPCS employees have long been denied the same collective bargaining rights as other public workers, and that a union would provide just-cause protections, a voice on staffing and working conditions, and better support for recruitment and retention. CPCS attorneys and staff testified in favor of the measure, citing heavy caseloads, rapid expansion, inadequate supervision and office support, and the need for representation in disciplinary and workplace disputes. Committee members asked about bargaining-unit composition, the role of the DLR, the effect of unionization on attorneys’ ethical duties, and the use and cost of paid signature gathering. The hearing ended with no votes taken and no opposition testimony presented.

Transcript Highlights:

• to 15 months to actually do construction while simultaneously completing the work necessary for regulatory
• We have to let the regulatory bodies do what the regulatory bodies do.
• He's a regulatory attorney with 40 years of experience in the field and working with the New Mexico Public
• Before I retired in 2021, I practiced regulatory law in front of the PRC and its predecessors for 42
• Jane Yee: Hello, my name is Jane Yee and I have been a regulatory attorney for the past 40 years.

Bills: HB303, SB96, HM6

Keywords: public utility, certificate of public convenience and necessity, certificate of need, Public Regulation Commission, PRC, utility regulation, ratemaking, energy storage, battery storage, grid reliability, renewable energy, transmission, distribution, generation plant, utility expansion, service territory, mutual domestic water consumer association, economic development department, clean energy, fossil fuel reduction

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, that could also be driven by state and federal regulatory requirements. system is.
• So we have to look at that as a legacy system as well that doesn't meet the business need or regulatory
• And then the last regulatory compliance.
• uh<00:09:55.279> the needs and to be meet the uh the needs and to be meet the uh the regulatory
• regulatory requirements and so forth. regulatory requirements and so forth.

Keywords: 0:20 Rollcall 2:28 Definition of Legacy system and demands of modern workplaces 10:48 Discussion of funding and planned expenditures 22:26 Contingency funding 23:16 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The House Budget Review Subcommittee on Personnel, Public Retirement, and Finance heard a presentation from the Commonwealth Office of Technology on legacy IT modernization funds and how they are used to address outdated, unsupported, or unsustainable systems. David Carter and Carrie Welch explained the state’s definition of a legacy system under KRS 7A.180, emphasizing not only vendor support issues but also changing business needs, regulatory compliance, and the loss of institutional knowledge for older systems. They described the office’s review process for determining whether a project qualifies, including assessing business risk, comparing options such as upgrades, replacements, shared solutions across agencies, or commercial products, and then matching the project to available funding. The presenters said COT reports twice a year to the Interim Joint Committee on Appropriations and Revenue on progress with legacy modernization projects. They reported 30 projects funded to date, with 18 completed, and said remaining projects are still moving forward while agencies continue to identify modernization needs. They highlighted examples of completed work, including modernized security cameras, replacement of unsupported systems, migration of documents to the Commonwealth Enterprise Content Management Platform, restoration of vendor support, a digital policy acknowledgement portal, replacement of the State Police dispatch system, and digitization of paper records for faster retrieval and better disaster resilience. Members asked for more detail on how the $10 million request would be allocated, including system-by-system spending, the split between software, hardware, vendor contracts, and staff time, and how the office determines when a system needs replacement. COT said it did not have a system-by-system or cost-category breakdown at the hearing but could provide one later, and explained that the funds are intended for development and first-time acquisition costs rather than ongoing maintenance. They also said the $5 million annual request was based on prior years’ experience and that agencies often contribute some funding themselves, so the program could still operate if appropriated less than the full amount. The committee then approved the minutes and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• This creates less regulatory authority.
• c> builders<00:42:24.240> and regulatory process for builders and regulatory process for builders
• <00:43:20.240> In HUD's full regulatory authority. In HUD's full regulatory authority.
• > $93,870 Regulatory costs already add $93,870 Regulatory costs already add $93,870 per<00:53:
• should be, largely because of regulatory should be, largely because of regulatory cost<01:15:42.320

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Friday, January 9, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• fails to recognize the magnitude of Minnesota's economy, adversely impacts the economy, creates regulatory
• Um, so that would be creating a fair framework for everyone farming in the same landscape.
• 01:23:54.719> fair Um so that would be creating a fair Um so that would be creating a fair framework
• 55.760> everyone<01:23:56.239> farming<01:23:56.639> in<01:23:56.800> the framework
• for everyone farming in the framework for everyone farming in the same<01:23:57.199> landscape.

Bills: HF3965, HF3704, HF3260, HF3718

Keywords: pesticide, agriculture, environmental protection, health risks, chemical safety, local agriculture, insecticides, pollinators, seeds, environmental health, neonicotinoids, systemic insecticides, civil penalties, pest management, land trends, report, appropriation, farmers, veterinary medicine, veterinary technology

Transcript Highlights:

• four years of the Biden-Harris administration, an administration that unleashed an onslaught of regulatory
• Res. 5 is the framework by which this body will deliver that change.
• hres<03:52:39.279> 5<03:52:39.680> is<03:52:39.840> the<03:52:40.080> framework
• <03:52:40.760> by must happen hres 5 is the framework by must happen hres 5 is the framework

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Friday, January 3, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:54:56.000> barriers reducing these regulatory barriers reducing these regulatory barriers
• All exactions must still follow the United States Constitution protections on regulatory takings.
• All exactions must still follow the United States Constitution protections on regulatory takings.
• All exactions must still follow the United States Constitution protections on regulatory takings.
• All exactions must still follow the United States Constitution protections on regulatory takings.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• , a legal framework instead of agency-to-agency framework.
• this path, they built a legal framework. this path, they built a legal framework.
• framework for sharing the data. framework for sharing the data.
• legal framework instead of a legal framework instead of agency-to-agency<00:15:27.920> framework.
• agency-to-agency framework. agency-to-agency framework.

Keywords: Technology - Room 409, 5 March, 2026; 8:00 A.M., 925, all

Summary: ATS and Gartner presented preliminary findings from the feasibility study required by Senate Bill 2267, which directed ATS to establish a CIO Council, study statewide data exchange feasibility, develop a phased implementation plan, and report progress to the legislature. ATS said the CIO Council has already met several times and has heard from other states, including Tennessee and Ohio, with Georgia expected to follow. Gartner explained that it interviewed about 17 agencies and was also gathering input from other states and market research to identify Mississippi’s current data-sharing landscape and possible paths forward. Gartner’s main findings were that Mississippi agencies strongly prioritize data security and compliance, but that this focus has also contributed to silos, point-to-point integrations, and inconsistent data definitions across agencies. The presenters said the state lacks a central legal framework and common standards, so agencies rely on individual memoranda of understanding. They emphasized that other states have generally not built “everything at once,” but instead started with specific outcomes such as citizen services, fraud detection, or reporting, then created statewide legal frameworks, common standards, and governance structures, often led by a chief data officer or similar office. The discussion also highlighted examples from other states, including Utah’s single portal for services and Maryland’s 360-degree citizen view for caseworkers. Gartner said Mississippi should first decide what outcome it wants from a data exchange and suggested that the effort should be framed as information sharing rather than moving all data into one central repository. Members and presenters discussed the need for foundational standards, a chief data office, and change management, including agency “change champions,” to build trust and participation over time. No votes were taken; the meeting was informational, and the presenters said the remaining CIO Council work would help prioritize use cases for the final feasibility report.

Transcript Highlights:

• If I can continue—yes, and with that, if it is perceived by an entity that the regulatory agency has
• agency has gone outside of regulatory agency has gone outside of the<00:26:10.000> statutory<
• allowance for these regulatory allowance for these regulatory bureaucracies<00:26:56.360> and
• Just quickly, I just want to be clear: this does not stop the regulatory agency from carrying out its
• The regulatory agency can still carry out its work.

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00:00 Roll Call: 00:00:04 SB 02: 00:01:37 Discussion in Opposition to SB 02: 00:09:49 SB 84: 00:22:19 SB 111: 00:30:35, 958, all

Summary: The committee first considered Senate Bill 2, sponsored by Senator Mike Wilson, which would prohibit incarcerated people from receiving cross-sex hormones or gender-affirming surgeries, while allowing a tapering period if stopping an existing treatment would cause physical harm. Wilson said the bill was needed to prevent the Department of Corrections from providing such care by memo or policy rather than statute, and he argued the care was elective and not medically necessary. Senators Thomas, Neal, Nemes, Styers, and others questioned whether any gender-affirming surgeries had actually occurred in Kentucky, whether the hormone treatments were physician-prescribed, and whether the bill would override medical judgment; Wilson said the department reported no surgeries, that 67 incarcerated people were receiving cross-sex hormone therapy, and that he would only support treatment if it fit the bill’s narrow medical-harm exception. Public testimony on SB 2 was strongly opposed. Chris Hartman of the Fairness Campaign said the bill would deny medically necessary care, violate the Eighth Amendment, and target a very small and vulnerable incarcerated population. Dr. Jack Skilles testified that gender-affirming care is medically necessary and supported by major medical organizations, warning that denying it could worsen mental health and lead to suicidality. Hannah Callahan, a transgender woman, described being denied hormone therapy while incarcerated and said the interruption caused severe physical and mental harm, including suicidal thoughts. Emma Curtis, Lexington’s Fourth District councilwoman, also urged a no vote, framing the issue as a matter of compassion and religious duty. The committee then voted on SB 2. Senator Neal explained his no vote by saying he was not medically trained and deferred to doctors; Senator Nemes said he wanted clarification that the bill would not stop ongoing treatment; and Senator Styers argued the bill was a poor priority and noted there was no fiscal note and that only 67 people were affected. Senator Wheeler moved the bill, Senator Reed seconded, and the committee reported Senate Bill 2 favorably. Afterward, the committee began hearing Senate Bill 84, sponsored by Senator Steve Rawlings, which would limit judicial deference to state agency interpretations and require courts, not agencies, to interpret ambiguous laws, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 Loper Bright decision overturning Chevron deference.

Transcript Highlights:

• originally to limit our ability to increase taxes, this was included, with the idea being that we have regulatory
• More importantly, many of these fees ensure that industries cover the regulatory costs, and as Arizona
• really they are providing a cost of likely a federal regulation that is requiring some sort of regulatory
• As such, as federal regulations change or the costs of providing that regulatory oversight increases,
• The license renewal fees are used to fund that agency, that regulatory body, so it is self-sufficient

Bills: SB1142, SCR1028

Keywords: scholarships, tax credit, education funding, nonprofit organizations, Arizona Revised Statutes, constitutional amendment, state revenue, tax policy, legislative approval, two-thirds vote, 1182, all

Summary: The House Ways and Means Committee heard Senate Concurrent Resolution 1028, which would send to voters a constitutional change narrowing an existing exception to Arizona’s two-thirds vote requirement for tax increases. The resolution would require legislative approval for increases in state revenue through fees and assessments that are authorized by statute before January 1, 2027, and set by a state officer or agency without a prescribed formula, amount, or limit. The sponsor argued the measure would close a loophole that has allowed agencies to raise fees without direct legislative accountability, while opponents said it would make it harder for agencies to adjust fees for inflation, operations, and regulatory costs and could shift costs to taxpayers or slow services. After testimony and debate, the committee voted 5-3 with one absent to return SCR 1028 with a due pass recommendation. The committee then took up Senate Bill 1142, which would have Arizona opt into a federal tax credit program for donations to scholarship-granting organizations. Supporters said the measure would bring new private scholarship funding into Arizona at no cost to the state, expand school choice, and help students with tutoring, special needs services, transportation, and other educational expenses. Opponents argued the federal program was not yet fully written, lacked clear guardrails, and could further strain public schools by diverting resources away from the majority of students who remain in the public system. Committee members debated whether the program would benefit Arizona students without affecting state funds, and whether more transparency and rules were needed before adoption. After discussion, the committee voted 5-3 with one absent to return SB 1142 with a do pass recommendation. Several members explained their votes on both measures, with supporters emphasizing voter choice, accountability, and limiting fee increases, and opponents emphasizing the need for revenue, public school funding, and caution about the unresolved federal scholarship rules.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, I am here on request today from the Coalition for Regulatory Efficiency and reform.
• I'm Chair Rod, uh, Bordelon with the, um, Coalition for Regulatory Efficiency and Reform.
• Um, again, given the fact that Texas has, um, the highest number of regulatory, uh, types that are, uh
• Those regulatory burdens for those folks that are coming to Texas for the first time and want to engage
• Healthcare providers can focus on patients, patient care instead of dealing with excessive regulatory

Transcript Highlights:

• The other regulatory boards.
• Regarding regulatory activity, the board approved the regulatory implementation package for Senate Bill
• Additionally, the board is developing a regulatory package to increase the initial licensing fee from
• Again, it's going to go through a whole regulatory process with comments and stakeholder engagement.
• Regulatory records. So I think this is... But we're not law enforcement.

Summary: The joint sunset oversight hearing reviewed five regulatory entities: the Board of Behavioral Sciences, the Board of Psychology, the Physician Assistant Board, the Podiatric Medical Board, and the California Massage Therapy Council. Across the hearing, each entity described recent accomplishments, licensing and enforcement workload, workforce shortages, and efforts to modernize processes. Common themes included streamlining licensure, expanding access to care, addressing telehealth or emerging technology, and balancing consumer protection with workforce needs. For the Board of Behavioral Sciences, members discussed workforce shortages in mental health, supervision barriers, telehealth confidentiality, AI in therapy, interstate compacts, school-based services, and military spouse licensure. The board said it has expanded outreach, improved licensing processes, and created temporary practice authority tracking, while also expressing concern about counseling compacts and emphasizing California-specific law, ethics, and cultural competency. Public commenters supported the board’s work and the possible move to a national MFT exam, while also urging more resources. The Board of Psychology highlighted fee adjustments, streamlined licensure pathways, enforcement process improvements, new CPD requirements, and proposed changes including a psychotherapist-client privilege exception for investigations. Committee members and public witnesses focused heavily on that privilege proposal, with some members opposing it as too broad and privacy-invasive, while the board argued it is needed to obtain records in bias and sexual misconduct cases. The board also discussed workforce shortages, processing improvements, and the use of inactive status for psychological associates. The Physician Assistant Board reported growth in the PA workforce and education programs, SB 697 implementation, and financial pressure from rising enforcement costs. The main policy debate centered on physician-to-PA ratios and practice agreements, with board representatives and many public commenters arguing that current restrictions limit access to care, especially in rural areas, while the California Medical Association defended the need for explicit ratios and agreements. The board also discussed AI, fee increases, and tracking temporary practice authority. The Podiatric Medical Board described licensing and renewal reforms, residency expansion, enforcement support, and budget constraints, while public testimony raised concerns about a proposed fee increase and about reimbursement parity and practice recognition for podiatrists. Finally, the California Massage Therapy Council defended the certification model over licensure, citing lower costs, local government collaboration, anti-trafficking work, and its role in vetting applications and disciplining bad actors; no formal votes or final actions were taken during this portion of the hearing.