Transcript Highlights:

• And can I adopt the previous speaker's words as my own? So ordered.
• In numerous committees throughout this session, there has been questions and many, many questions and
• c> something</c> question something question something debatable<00:19:30.640><c> that</c><00:19:30.960
• </c><00:20:02.960><c> So</c> previous speaker's words as my own?
• </c><00:21:05.039><c> and</c> questions and qu many many questions and questions and qu many many questions

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> asking these two questions asking these two questions that that that House<00:33:04.679><c> Resolution
• c><00:38:55.840><c> comments</c> with the previous speaker's comments with the previous speaker's comments
• Will you entertain a question, Madam Speaker?
• We will not be taking questions at this time.
• one to reconsider our previous action and give notice of the intent to agree.

Bills: HB389 , HB469 , HB1510 , HB1573 , HB1705 , HB1858 , HB1875 , HB1946 , HB1961 , HB1962 , HB2001 , HB2093 , HB2096 , HB2097

Keywords: HB389, uncrewed aircraft, drone, drones, UAS, unmanned aerial vehicle, misuse of uncrewed aircraft, criminal offense, felony enhancement, drone crime, public safety, police, deputy sheriff, fire department, intoxicated operation, registration number tampering, property damage, bodily injury, Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney Package, Hawaii Revised Statutes

Transcript Highlights:

• Any questions for Mr. Bryant?
• Any objection to using previous roll?
• </c> questions from the committee for Mr. questions from the committee for Mr. Turk? Turk? Turk?
• </c> Any objection to using previous roll? Any objection to using previous roll?
• ><c> for</c><00:10:23.440><c> the</c> Any other questions, comments for the Any other questions, comments

Committee: Senate Confirmations

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> on the previous question. on the previous question. Thank<02:44:28.319><c> you.
• The question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. Those in favor say aye.
• The question is on ordering the previous question.
• The previous question is ordered. The question is on adoption of the resolution.
• The previous question<03:59:24.800><c> is</c> question is question is ordered.<03:59:27.439><c> The</

Bills: HR377

Transcript Highlights:

• Any questions? >> Previous role. Any objections? >> None. We'll move on to the next one.
• </c> have a question time. have a question time.
• What can we do for your<00:45:58.960><c> question?</c> your question? your question?
• Any other questions or comments? >> All right. Seeing none. >> Should we use previous roll any?
• Any other questions or comments? >> Any objection to using previous roll?

Bills: SB23 , SB71 , SB105 , SB109 , SB115 , SB131 , SB148 , SB165 , SB23 , SB71 , SB105 , SB109 , SB115 , SB131 , SB148 , SB165

Committee: Senate County and Municipal Government

Keywords: law enforcement, taser, restrained individuals, police procedures, civil rights, income tax, tax exemption, Alabama tax code, Section 40-18-3, civilian employees, Department of Defense, DoD, Armed Forces, military pay, combat zone, deployment, National Guard, Reserve components, emergency response, federal employees

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Happy to answer any questions. Happy to answer any questions.
• Any questions?
• </c> answer those questions he's got. answer those questions he's got.
• </c> questions or comments? questions or comments?
• </c> using previous role on the amendment? using previous role on the amendment?

Bills: SB255 , SB199 , SB47 , HB605 , HB216 , HB621 , HB148 , HB389 , HB509 , HB248 , SB255 , SB199 , SB47 , HB605 , HB216 , HB621 , HB148 , HB389 , HB509 , HB248 , SB336 , SB293 , SB43 , HB420 , HB60 , HB188 , HB106 , HB105 , HB11 , SB336 , SB293 , SB43 , HB420 , HB60 , HB188 , HB106 , HB105 , HB11

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Keywords: SB255, cannabinoid, hemp, hemp-derived THC, THCa, delta-8 THC, HHC, CBD, THC, novel cannabinoid products, hemp products, intoxicating hemp, delta-8, retail license, Department of Revenue, Department of Agriculture and Industries, testing and labeling, third-party laboratory, product safety, public health

Transcript Highlights:

• Just a really quick question.
• Okay, so you answer my question.
• At previous, like what was the reasoning for changing those districts previous to now?
• Question—I promise this is it.
• And what is the question?

Transcript Highlights:

• Any other questions? Did I clear up your questions?
• &gt;&gt; Good<00:44:44.400><c> question.</c> &gt;&gt; Good question. &gt;&gt; Good question.
• Members, any other questions? I got a question for SHPD.
• questions? questions?
• </c> questions or concerns? questions or concerns?

Bills: HB1527 , HB1823 , HB2490 , HB2223 , HB2325 , HB2104 , HB2593 , HB2592 , HB1927 , HB1553 , HB1964 , HB1918 , HB1990

Committee: House Water & Land

Summary: The committee first heard HB 1527 relating to gambling. The chair outlined hearing rules, including a two-minute limit and a warning that bills not heard would die. Testimony was overwhelmingly in support from a prosecutor, Honolulu Police Department, and Stop Predatory Gambling, all arguing that casinos and sports betting increase crime, sex trafficking, harassment of athletes, and broader social harm. No opposition testimony was presented, and the committee moved on without questions or action taken on the bill. The committee then heard HB 1823 relating to coastal zone management and HB 2490 relating to coastal resilience. For HB 1823, DLNR, the Office of Planning, and Maui County testified, with Maui County supporting the measure and its proposed amendments. For HB 2490, DLNR expressed concern about exempting a proposed Mokuji Bay pilot project from permits and regulation before a long-term plan is finalized, while the County of Maui, the Mokuji Soto Zen Mission, and the Office of Planning supported the bill as a coastal resilience pilot. The mission described severe erosion, sea-level rise impacts, and years of unsuccessful efforts to stabilize the shoreline; its consultant said the study is leaning toward nature-based and hybrid solutions. In questioning, members and DLNR discussed whether the bill should say the project “shall” or “may” be exempt, and the chair indicated the language would be adjusted to preserve DLNR discretion and to change the lead agency reference to OPSD. No vote was taken in the transcript. Finally, the committee took up HB 2223 relating to historic preservation reviews. SHPD said it stood on its written comments, while OPSD and DHHL supported the bill. DHHL argued the measure would streamline reviews, improve transparency, and help address long wait times for its projects, saying it could alleviate burden on SHPD and better serve beneficiaries. Representative Shimizu questioned whether the bill would create redundancy and expand government rather than strengthen SHPD, noting a separate staffing bill already exists. SHPD responded that DHHL is uniquely subject to 6E review and that the bill would not waive federal or state historic review requirements; the discussion also touched on possible federal-style grant support and the existing memorandum of agreement between SHPD and DHHL. The transcript ends during questioning, with no final committee action shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:10:56.480><c> One</c><00:10:56.800><c> question.
• One question. So, the I heard &gt;&gt; All right. One question.
• Any objection to the previous roll?
• Seeing none, bill's given previous role?
• Okay, seeing none, the previous role?

Bills: SB337 , HB520 , HB75 , SB337 , HB520 , HB75

Committee: Senate Education Policy

Keywords: SB337, Montgomery County, probate judge, judge of probate, county officer compensation, salary increase, circuit judge parity, local legislation, county commission, general fund, public official pay, judicial compensation, Montgomery County Legislation, discrimination, immunization, facial coverings, healthcare rights, religious convictions, civil rights, Attorney General

Transcript Highlights:

• That's a good question.
• Okay, any other questions, comments? I just had one question for you, Mr. White.
• Okay, any other questions, comments? I just had one question for you, Mr. White.
• Any other questions? Mr.
• Any other questions?

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• Any other questions? >> Okay.
• Any other questions?
• I just have a couple questions about...
• I just have a couple questions &gt;&gt; Okay.
• I'm going to use previous &gt;&gt; All right.

Bills: SB89 , SB54 , SB127 , SB128 , SB77 , SB78 , SB100 , SB101 , SB102 , SB103 , SB113 , SB126 , SB122 , SB136

Committee: Senate Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Development

Keywords: pilotage, commission, statewide laws, maritime regulation, repeal, sunset law, Alabama Surface Mining Commission, environmental regulation, mining, state commission, Alabama Board of Examiners in Counseling, state agency, continuous operation, government efficiency, sickle cell disease, healthcare, regulatory commission, public health, 911 services, 911 Board

Transcript Highlights:

• And then, skipping question four because that was an LAO question, to question five: Have we halted hiring
• And then, skipping question four because that was an LAO question, to question five: Have we halted hiring
• My question is... I hope I heard your question, because I am right under the vent.
• Any questions? Assembly Member? Thank you, Chair. Just one question.
• Any questions? Assembly Member? Thank you, Chair. Just one question.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we do have questions for you. Representative Paul, did you have a question still? Yes.
• The questions that you asked on 7 actually made me think of a question.
• Any other questions? Next, please.
• Any questions on this or previous amendment so far? Representative Paul. Thank you, Madam Chair.
• Any questions on this or previous amendment so far? Representative Paul. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Bills: HB2684 , HJM4012

Committee: House Technology, Economic Development, & Veterans

Keywords: social disadvantage, business certification, state guidelines, economic equity, minority-owned businesses, combat veterans, support, military service, injury compensation, veteran affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• the second part of Question 2.
• Thank you for that question.
• Thank you for that question.
• And then, skipping question four, because that was an LAO question, to question five: Have we halted
• Any questions? Assembly Member? Thank you, Chair. Just one question.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittees on early childhood education heard a broad review of the Governor’s child care and preschool budget proposals, with testimony from the Department of Finance, the Department of Social Services (CDSS), the California Department of Education (CDE), and the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO). The main topics were cost-of-care-plus and COLA adjustments, the California State Preschool Program, child care slot reductions tied to federal and Proposition 64 funding changes, disaster recovery grants for child care facilities, trailer bill proposals on family fees and absences, prospective pay, and several budget change proposals for departmental staffing and licensing. Officials also discussed the state’s transition toward an alternative methodology for setting rates based on the true cost of care. On rate reform, CDSS and CDE said the current reimbursement system remains below the alternative methodology in many counties and that providers continue to struggle with recruitment and retention. The LAO recommended aligning cost-of-care-plus increases across provider types, while CDE urged that any COLA be added to base rates rather than cost-of-care-plus payments because providers view the latter as less ongoing. CDSS said the next alternative methodology update will be developed with a contractor during fiscal year 2026-27, with public engagement and legislative input, and estimated that fully transitioning to rates informed by the methodology would take about 24 months once policy and funding are in place. CDSS also said the direct-service cost of care under the methodology was estimated at about $18.7 billion in a July 2025 report. A major point of contention was the proposed reduction of 4,167 child care slots due to lower federal CCDF funding and reduced Proposition 64 revenue. CDSS said it expects to absorb the reduction through unspent funds and relinquishments so currently enrolled children are not disrupted, while the LAO supported the reduction as a way to avoid worsening the structural deficit. Members strongly objected to the slot cuts, arguing the administration has repeatedly proposed reductions after prior budget agreements and emphasizing the economic and family benefits of child care. The committee also discussed preschool enrollment trends, including growth in three-year-old enrollment and a sharp increase in two-year-olds served under a temporary provision, with CDE warning that the temporary two-year-old authority expires in 2027. The committee also reviewed an $11.5 million Proposition 64 proposal for child care infrastructure grants for facilities impacted by 2025 state disasters, especially the Los Angeles fires, and members asked for trailer bill language to make the funds flexible for repairs, equipment, insurance, and permitting. On trailer bill items, the panel discussed codifying family fee reimbursement rules, defining excessive unexplained absences to allow disenrollment after prolonged nonuse, and expanding temporary provider absences; CDSS said the absence policy is meant to mirror federal CCDF rules, while CDE said it is already pursuing its own rulemaking. The hearing also covered prospective pay, with CDSS and CDE saying they are waiting for final federal guidance before moving ahead; LAO said the state could save ongoing costs if the federal requirement is rescinded. Finally, the committee reviewed staffing and support budget requests for CDSS and other implementation items, and held several items open for further discussion before the May Revision. Public comment overwhelmingly urged full funding for child care slots, true cost-of-care payments, and ongoing support for early education programs and county offices of education.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:18:40.640><c> role</c> any objection to using the previous role any objection to using the previous
• It's more of a question. Well, it is one question.
• Are there any questions?
• Are there any questions? report. Are there any questions?
• </c><00:27:56.480><c> No</c> to us in the previous role? No to us in the previous role?

Bills: SB115 , SB131 , SB93 , HB319 , HB163 , HB268 , SB115 , SB131 , SB93 , HB319 , HB163 , HB268 , HB181 , HB153 , SB132 , SB26 , SB189 , SB196 , HB140 , SB197 , HB117 , HB181 , HB153 , SB132 , SB26 , SB189 , SB196 , HB140 , SB197 , HB117

Committee: Senate County and Municipal Government

Keywords: SB115, Alabama, impersonating a peace officer, peace officer, law enforcement impersonation, police impersonation, unauthorized police officer, fake cop, certification revoked, certification suspended, Alabama Peace Officers' Standards and Training Commission, APOSTC, Class C felony, law enforcement hiring, appointment of officers, federal law enforcement, arrest authority, public order, criminal offenses, Judiciary Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Previous<00:13:02.480><c> unanimous</c><00:13:03.040><c> role</c> Previous unanimous role Previous unanimous
• </c> &gt;&gt; ask questions. All right. &gt;&gt; ask questions. All right.
• So, good questions.
• Any questions? questions? questions?
• Any questions quickly?

Bills: HB245 , SB16 , SB59 , SB62 , SB79 , SB88 , HB245 , SB16 , SB59 , SB62 , SB79 , SB88

Committee: Senate Finance and Taxation Education

Keywords: inhalants, controlled substances, butyl nitrite, nitrous oxide, amyl nitrite, health, public safety, SB16, four-point restraint, hog-tie, hog tie, prone restraint, law enforcement, police, sheriff, use of force, restraint techniques, positional asphyxia, arrest procedures, detention

Transcript Highlights:

• So, any questions that I can answer?
• Any other questions for Jody? Representative Kempi?
• Jim, I get a question for you. Sure.
• You're asking really difficult questions, and I love it.
• Any questions from the committee?

Summary: The committee met to approve prior minutes and receive updates on the Legacy Fund transparency website and fund performance. Staff reported the website procurement was in contract negotiations, with a planned go-live around November 1, and that the site would provide downloadable, more transparent information on fund holdings, allocations, history, and legislative appropriations while protecting confidential data. The investment office then reviewed performance through January 2026, describing strong returns relative to benchmarks, noting real estate and fixed income as weaker areas, and explaining that the fund’s diversification and internal management had helped offset market volatility, including recent geopolitical impacts. Members also discussed the in-state investment program, especially the Bank of North Dakota’s CD-match allocation. Several members questioned whether the program had been static for years and whether the uncommitted balance should remain parked there if it was not being used. The committee voted to pause further transfers into the program until the Bank provides a report and the committee can consider possible statutory changes; the motion also requested a cost-benefit analysis from RVK, and it passed by roll call vote. In the afternoon, RVK presented its review of the investment policy statement as it relates to the in-state investment program. The consultant said it found no major policy impediments, and that implementers and stakeholders generally felt the program was proceeding as intended. RVK emphasized best practices such as third-party due diligence, competitive risk-adjusted returns, diversification, pacing, and exit strategies, while cautioning that required lower-return investments or spending commitments can create pressure on the fund’s long-term real value. The consultant also raised ancillary concerns about state-level concentration risk, the need to distinguish between public and commercial infrastructure, and the lack of a central repository for all state funding commitments to the same projects.

Transcript Highlights:

• And with that, I'm happy to take any questions. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions.
• I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions from the committee?
• Any questions for this witness? No question. Thank you very much for your testimony.
• Any further questions for this witness? No questions appearing.
• Any questions for this witness? No questions appearing.

Committee: House Corrections and Public Institutions

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 2818, which would allow St. Joseph to annex the Rosecrans Airport property and the surrounding acreage into city limits despite the land not being contiguous to the city because of a gap that includes a river and private farms. Representative Brenda Shields and St. Joseph city officials said annexation is needed so the city can apply economic development tools to the airport area, especially as the 139th Airlift Wing relocates and vacates buildings that would revert to the city. Members asked about the need for a statute change and the noncontiguous annexation issue; no opposition was presented, and the hearing on HB 2818 was closed without a vote. The committee then took up House Bills 2695, 2751, and 2831 together, all focused on prison sentence credits, rehabilitation incentives, and related policy changes. Sponsors and supporters described the bills as creating or expanding good-time and earned-time credits for orderly behavior and participation in education, vocational training, treatment, and other rehabilitation programs, while excluding inmates serving death or life-without-parole sentences and certain persistent offenders. HB 2751 also includes a provision removing the lifetime ban on SNAP eligibility for people convicted of drug felonies, which supporters said would aid reentry and family stability. Sponsors said they were open to amendments and acknowledged concerns about how credits would be administered and whether the parole board should retain discretion. Committee members and witnesses raised concerns about whether the bills could allow serious offenders, including some sex offenders and violent offenders, to earn credits, and about the use of “shall” language that might create litigation or disputes over whether credits were earned. The sponsors said the bills rely on Department of Corrections policy for program qualification and discipline rules, and that parole board discretion remained part of the compromise language. Testimony in support came from formerly incarcerated people, faith leaders, advocacy groups, and a prosecutor who supported the concept of earned credits but urged tighter exclusions for serious crimes. No vote was taken during the hearing, and the sponsors indicated they would continue working on amendments with stakeholders.

Transcript Highlights:

• Are there any questions on the... ...questions. Are there any questions on the amendment?
• I got a generalized question.
• I think we have answered their questions, and we've made... ...answered their questions and we've made
• I have a question. Yes, ma'am.
• Um, just a question, just on procedure.

Bills: HB134 , SB217 , SB180 , HB157 , HB92 , HB335

Committee: Senate County and Municipal Government

Keywords: vehicle registration, disability access, fines, law enforcement, public accommodation, bond financing, municipal bonds, county debt, local government debt, debt service schedule, bond disclosure, public finance, bond underwriter, county commission, city council, refunding bonds, swap agreements, interest rate swaps, derivatives, fiscal transparency

Transcript Highlights:

• After our presentation, we'll be happy to take your questions.
• </c> blue as I've discussed in previous blue as I've discussed in previous forecasts<00:28:32.200><c>
• And with that, we're happy to take questions.
• And with that, we're happy to take questions. Question: Does uncertainty understate what this is?
• biennium, tax policy changes during the previous biennium?

Summary: Minnesota Management and Budget presented the February 2025 budget and economic forecast, with Commissioner Aon Campbell, State Economist Anthony Becker, and Budget Director Anam Mingi outlining updated revenue, spending, and long-term balance projections. The state’s FY 2026-27 general fund outlook remains positive but weaker than in November, with an ending balance of $456 million, down $160 million from the prior forecast. Looking ahead, the planning years FY 2028-29 show a projected deficit of just under $6 billion, driven largely by spending growth outpacing revenues. Officials emphasized that discretionary inflation is a major factor in the forecast, but also noted that those amounts are not automatically appropriated and would require legislative action. Becker said the national outlook has changed since November, with higher expected inflation, higher interest rates for longer, and slower growth in later years. He highlighted uncertainty around tariffs, trade policy, immigration policy, federal spending, and possible changes to tax and debt-ceiling policy, all of which could affect Minnesota’s economy and revenues. Minnesota’s labor market remains tight, with low unemployment and rising wages, and the revenue forecast was revised upward overall for FY 2026-27, including higher income and sales tax receipts, though corporate tax revenue was slightly lower than previously projected. Mingi said projected general fund spending is up $79 million in FY 2026-27 and $960 million in FY 2028-29 compared with November. The largest increases are in education and health and human services, especially due to inflation, higher pupil counts, special education costs, long-term care, and higher Medical Assistance spending. She noted that higher utilization of weight-loss drugs also raises Medicaid costs, and that a smaller assumed bonding bill helps offset some debt service costs. The commissioner and staff repeatedly warned that federal policy changes, especially possible Medicaid reductions, pose a major risk; they said Minnesota could face billions in lost federal funding, including a potential $2.4 billion hit if the enhanced Medicaid match for adults without children were eliminated. No votes or legislative actions were taken in the presentation.