Transcript Highlights:

• Article 1 provides the revision to the READ Act that we have had ongoing conversations about.
• We welcome continued conversations in this space about what we can provide, but I want to note that a
• Chair, and thank you, authors of the bill, for starting this conversation.
• you know um um as I this conversation you know um um as I mentioned<01:14:56.360> with<01:14:
• If we want to have a long attendance conversation, I'd be happy to do that, but right now the way the

Bills: HF6, HF52, HF53

Keywords: education, literacy, science of reading, school performance, funding flexibility, innovation zones, equity and inclusion, HF52, New Germany, wastewater treatment, wastewater facility, sewer infrastructure, capital investment, bonding bill, state bonds, Public Facilities Authority, municipal infrastructure, water quality, sanitation, sewage treatment

Transcript Highlights:

• The initial conversation led to a large group from Delta coming up from Atlanta and from the Minnesota
• The initial conversation led to a large group from Delta coming up from Atlanta and from the Minnesota
• The initial conversation led to a large group from Delta coming up from Atlanta and from the Minnesota
• of an have a conversation kind of an educational<01:50:43.679> conversation<01:50:44.159>
• a<01:50:44.320> diagnostic educational conversation a diagnostic educational conversation

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I know there's been some conversation about the Community Eligibility Program, and so the calculation
• <01:11:40.600> that's could have been a conversation that's could have been a conversation
• It's a complicated process, and I think it's good we're having these conversations.
• It's a complicated process, and I think it's good we're having these conversations.
• And so that was part of the conversation when those funds were originally developed.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Committee Division II met with the New Hampshire Department of Education to review school nutrition programs and related funding. Department staff Melissa White and Kelly Rambo walked through a packet covering the National School Lunch Program, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, Community Eligibility (CEP), After School Snack Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, and Summer Food Service Program, explaining that these are federally funded USDA programs, with some state supplemental funding in certain areas. They also reviewed reimbursement rates for lunch, breakfast, child/adult care, and summer meals, noting that summer rates follow calendar-year timing while most others follow the state fiscal year. Members asked several questions about how the funding works, especially the difference between federal reimbursements and the state match. Staff explained that the state lunch line in the budget is a fixed match amount tied to federal participation, while breakfast funding is broken out by meal type and reimbursement category. They also discussed why FY 2022 federal spending was much higher during COVID, when USDA covered meals at the free rate for all students, and why FY 2023 and FY 2024 dropped as normal income-eligibility rules returned. A committee member also asked about the “severe need lunch” two-cent rate, and staff said they did not know USDA’s formula. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on summer meals and the distinction between the Summer Food Service Program and Summer EBT. Staff explained that SFSP provides meals at approved sites, which can be open or closed sites, while Summer EBT is a separate DHHS-operated benefit program that provides funds to families. They said some schools or sites may not qualify under USDA rules, but eligible children can often use another nearby open site, and the department posts an interactive map and phone line to help families find locations. The committee also discussed the Community Eligibility Provision. Staff said New Hampshire currently has three CEP schools, that the eligibility threshold had recently been lowered from 40% to 25% identified students, and that the program allows participating schools to offer free meals to all students while the local district covers the non-federal share. Members asked whether any districts in the 25% to 40% range had joined; staff said no. The department offered to provide the eligibility report in Excel and noted that the CEP intent is to reduce application burden, though the lower threshold can make the local cost share harder for some districts to absorb.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm clearly infatuated by this conversation.
• As well, I think the, uh, a couple of thoughts come to mind in this conversation.
• Um, we also have, uh, a lot of conversations about how do we construe it?
• those are those are fine conversations those are those are fine conversations to<00:59:56.440>
• Many questions are answered and issues are resolved through informal conversation.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, um, I will just take that on myself as representing my conversation with her.
• You passed, Senator from Franklin. >> Um, as I was saying, I have had conversations with the minority
• leader... ...conversations with the minority leader and others, and with that in mind, I would at this
• We had some very productive conversations, and I'm happy to report that the Senate's proposal was accepted
• So, there's a few changes to the report that came out of that conversation.

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This has been a easy one, subject of a significant amount of conversation in my life, anyway.
• 35.480> significant<00:07:36.080> amount<00:07:36.360> of<00:07:36.440> conversation
• of a significant amount of conversation of a significant amount of conversation in<00:07:37.280>
• In conversations after I drafted the amendment with the sponsors and other folks, we felt that unlawful

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're hearing their conversations in Eagan about a one-year moratorium on incorporating them.
• There are conversations in Hermantown and Farmington. So, let's start at the beginning.
• Regarding<00:04:13.760> the<00:04:13.840> conversation<00:04:14.480> around<00:04
• :14.920> data Regarding the conversation around data centers, I'm also seeing NDAs come up or
• Senator, thank you so much for the conversation. It's been enlightening.

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The discussion focused on the growing number of data center proposals in Minnesota and the concerns they are raising in communities such as Eagan, Hermantown, Farmington, and Rosemount. The senator described data centers as having evolved from small server rooms into large industrial-scale facilities that support data storage and AI systems, and said the main issue is not whether they are needed, but where they should be located. He argued they should be treated as industrial uses and placed in industrial zones away from residential neighborhoods because of potential impacts on nearby homes, including concerns about property values, utilities, and the character of the area. The senator also discussed Senate File 607, a bill he introduced last session to address data center placement. He said the bill would require data centers to be sited in industrial areas and include an inspection to ensure adequate water and electricity resources are available. He said the bill had been scheduled for a hearing in State Government but the hearing was canceled, and he hopes to bring it back for a hearing this session. He noted that the issue is becoming more important as data center development expands and that lawmakers are still catching up to the change. A second major topic was the use of nondisclosure agreements in data center development. The senator said local governments should not be required to sign NDAs before discussing projects with constituents, especially when those agreements prevent public disclosure until projects are already far along. He said NDAs may be appropriate in limited cases, such as tours of controlled facilities where trade secrets are involved, but not when cities are buying property or rezoning land. He expressed support for efforts to ban or limit NDAs in this context and said the issue is bipartisan but also politically difficult in a closely divided legislature.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we've had specific conversations, which we really didn't discuss yesterday, but I know from the session
• And we've had specific conversations, which we really didn't discuss yesterday, but I know from the session
• And I know there's already some discussion about those areas that we had some conversations about.
• There's already some discussion about those areas that we had some conversations about.
• There were others that maybe had a little bit more conversation, and that's okay, but that's why it's

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Health Care Task Force reconvened to hear reports from its divisions. The Appropriations Division reviewed a draft bill appropriating $198 million in federal grant funds for the current year and another $198 million for the next grant year, authorizing DHS to transfer funds within its budget, allowing OMB to adjust federal fund authority for related grants, speeding procurement and bulk purchasing, requiring grant recipients to acknowledge the temporary nature of the funding, and mandating periodic reporting. After questions were answered to the division’s satisfaction, the committee voted to forward the appropriations bill draft to Legislative Management. The Policy Division then reviewed four bills. One would require the presidential physical fitness test to be included in high school physical education; another would require physicians to complete one hour of continuing education on nutrition and metabolic health each renewal cycle; a third would add physician assistants to the interstate licensure compact framework; and a fourth would authorize limited pharmacist prescriptive authority and therapeutic substitution. Members generally supported the first three measures and noted that the pharmacist bill had been amended in discussion but was left in its current form so stakeholders could comment before the special session. The division also discussed that all four policy bills were tied to the federal grant funding and that failure to pass them, or changing them in a way that reduced CMS scoring, could reduce or eliminate funding. Department officials confirmed that if any of the bills failed or were altered in a way that lowered the score, the state could lose money and could not make up the points elsewhere. Members raised concerns about the physical fitness bill, including possible exemptions for students with severe illnesses or physical limitations, and noted the need for DPI input. Leadership indicated the special session hearings would likely begin Wednesday morning. The committee then approved a motion for Legislative Council to prepare a committee report for Legislative Management and adjourned, noting the task force may need to remain available during the special session.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, you have my pledge to continue those conversations.
• Senator Matthews and I conversations.
• Conversation started. With that, Senate File 3954 is laid over.
• keep that conversation going. Thank you. keep that conversation going. Thank you.
• account, part of a larger conversation. account, part of a larger conversation.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It sparked a conversation.
• He and I had a conversation.
• That's a whole separate conversation.
• I would just like to thank this body's commitment to this conversation last year, because that conversation
• Thank you, members, for the conversation on this.

Summary: The Senate convened with an opening prayer, pledge, and a series of introductions recognizing guests, visiting groups, and special honorees in the galleries. The chamber then took up committee and executive appointment business, adopting a report confirming 42 gubernatorial appointments by a vote of 36-0. The Senate next considered a long special-order calendar of bills, most of them passing with little or no opposition. Measures included public-records sunset reviews and trade secret/cybersecurity exemptions; a child-abuse reporting statute of limitations bill; commercial driving school oversight; human trafficking training for nurses; a new injunction for protection against serious violence and its related public-records exemption; nature-based coastal resiliency and mangrove protection; a chiropractic trust-funds cap repeal; specialty license plates; a waiver of late financial disclosure fines; public school personnel compensation; the Florida Farm Bill with multiple agriculture, biosolids, and enforcement provisions; homestead exemption clarification for long-term leases; disability presumption clarifications for first responders; reinsurance intermediary manager conformity; patriotic displays in public schools; ADS-B aviation fee restrictions; autism-related law enforcement training and the Blue Envelope program; campus safety reporting procedures for public postsecondary institutions; and veterinary prescription disclosure. Several bills were temporarily postponed, including local vessel restrictions, temporary critical-need practice certificates, and domestic animals. The floor debate featured the most discussion on the farm bill, the HCSM/nonprofit religious organizations bill, the autism law-enforcement bill, and the school athletics bill. The HCSM bill drew extended debate over whether licensed insurance agents should be allowed to market faith-based health care sharing ministries, with supporters emphasizing consumer choice, free speech, and religious liberty, and opponents warning about unregulated products and commissions; it passed 32-5. The athletics bill, prompted by the Teddy Bridgewater/Miami Northwestern situation, would let coaches provide good-faith support to student-athletes while requiring reporting and FHSAA oversight; it passed 38-0. Most other measures passed overwhelmingly, including the autism bill 38-0, the campus safety bill 37-0, the public school patriotic displays bill 36-2, and the farm bill 38-0 after amendments addressing Everglades lands and biosolids timing were adopted.

Transcript Highlights:

• It sparked a conversation.
• He and I had a conversation.
• That's a whole separate conversation.
• I would just like to thank this body's commitment to this conversation last year, because that conversation
• Thank you, members, for the conversation on this.

Summary: The Senate convened with an opening prayer, pledge, and a series of gallery introductions recognizing visitors, local officials, students, and public safety personnel. The chamber first took up a report from the Ethics and Elections Committee on 42 executive appointments; after Senator Gaetz explained that the committee had reviewed the appointees’ qualifications and suitability, the Senate adopted the report and confirmed the appointments by a 36-0 vote. The Senate then moved through a long special-order calendar focused largely on open-government sunset reviews and other policy bills. It passed measures to continue or consolidate public records and meeting exemptions for aquaculture records, agency-held trade secrets, and cybersecurity information, with one technical amendment adopted on the cybersecurity bill. The chamber also approved bills extending the statute of limitations for failure to report child abuse, strengthening regulation of commercial driving schools, requiring human trafficking education for nursing graduates, creating a new injunction for protection against serious violence by a known person, and making the related public-records exemption. Additional bills passed included a nature-based coastal resiliency measure with an amendment restricting dredge-and-fill in Terra Ceia Aquatic Preserve, a chiropractic trust-funds bill, specialty license plates, a one-time waiver of late financial disclosure fines, public school personnel compensation changes, the annual Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services “Farm Bill,” homestead exemption clarification for long-term leaseholders, disability-presumption clarifications for first responders, reinsurance intermediary manager changes, patriotic displays in public schools, ADS-B fee restrictions, autism-related law enforcement training and a Blue Envelope program, campus safety policy transparency at public colleges and universities, and veterinary prescription disclosure. Several bills were temporarily postponed, including local vessel restrictions, temporary certificates for practice, and domestic animals. The Senate also debated and passed a bill allowing licensed insurance agents to market health care sharing ministries, despite concerns raised by Senator Polsky about consumer confusion, commissions, and the sale of non-insurance products; supporters argued it restored free speech, religious liberty, and consumer choice. The chamber approved the bill 32-5 after debate. Most other measures passed with strong bipartisan support, often by unanimous or near-unanimous votes, and several companion House bills were substituted in place of Senate bills before final passage.

Transcript Highlights:

• I really appreciate all of you being here today for this very important conversation. Dr.
• Jackson, and really appreciate all of you being here today for this very important conversation.
• Thank you. forward to continue conversations. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
• We even have conversations about what to do if ICE ever enters the classroom.
• I know we've got a number of conversations there. I wanted to pose a question to Dr.

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee held an oversight hearing on how federal actions are affecting California higher education, with opening remarks from the chair and members emphasizing the importance of state-federal shared governance and the need to protect access, affordability, and campus diversity. The first panel included leaders from the CSU, University of the Pacific, California Community Colleges, and UC, who described broad impacts from federal grant terminations, changes to student aid, loan limits, visa and immigration policy, and proposed reductions to research support. Testimony focused on the elimination of Grad PLUS loans, caps on Parent PLUS and Pell-related changes, the loss or suspension of hundreds of grants, and the resulting harm to student support services, research, workforce pipelines, food assistance, and health care training. UC and CSU representatives warned of major losses in research funding, indirect cost reimbursement, and student opportunities, while community college leaders highlighted uncertainty around federal grants and the need to maintain services for low-income, first-generation, undocumented, and other vulnerable students. Committee members asked how the state could respond, including through intersegmental partnerships, dual enrollment, transfer pathways, and support for basic needs and nutrition programs. Witnesses said California could help by sustaining financial aid, protecting minority-serving institution programs, and investing in research, housing, and workforce development. Several speakers stressed that federal changes were creating instability for students and campuses, and that the effects would likely be long-lasting, especially in health care, teaching, STEM, and social work pipelines. A second panel then focused on equitable access. The California Student Aid Commission described state efforts such as the $3.9 billion investment in aid programs, the Cal Grant system, the Dream Act, and possible reforms to better serve adult learners, foster youth, undocumented students, and students with dependents. The Los Angeles Community College District reported that federal cuts and policy shifts are discouraging students from applying for aid, threatening TRIO and MSI/HSI-funded services, and reducing support for basic needs, counseling, and workforce programs. The Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities and the CSU Academic Senate echoed concerns about FAFSA confusion, international student restrictions, grant losses, and the erosion of equity-focused programs. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and discussed possible state responses.

Transcript Highlights:

• you for the starting this conversation you for the starting this conversation in<00:14:08.639>
• And then also advise consumers to have that conversation with a dairy farmer.
• <00:48:52.160> to flexibility uh for the conversation to flexibility uh for the conversation
• 26.720> with<00:54:26.960> the to have conversations with the to have conversations with
• conversations, Representative Anderson conversations, Representative Anderson and<00:58:27.599> I,

Bills: HF2784, HF2785, HF2778, HF2281, HF2576, HF2280, HF2579

Keywords: beginning farmers, agriculture, loans, economic opportunity, farmers' equity, agriculture appropriations, farm to school, early care, child care food program, school lunch program, local food, Minnesota agriculture, food access, farm-to-institution, limited market access, county fairs, biofuels, E25, ethanol, meat processing

Transcript Highlights:

• This happens through condo conversions, because people will occupy a unit as their home, or because some
• I hope you recommend action on this petition, and we look forward to further conversation.
• I've been in many conversations and can tell you that there's an idea that this crisis can be solved
• If you're going to continue to have conversations, that's fine, but just step out so we can hear the
• It's very humbling because you get these images of unhoused, and then you have an actual conversation

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-21, House Bill 508, an act to protect tenants by limiting rent increases. Committee leaders explained the Article 48 initiative process and said the hearing was intended to gather testimony for a report to the legislature. The measure would replace current state law that prohibits rent control, cap annual rent increases at the lower of CPI or 5%, exempt certain properties including owner-occupied buildings of four or fewer units, subsidized, university, nonprofit, and short-term rental housing, and exempt new construction for 10 years. It would also eliminate vacancy decontrol, so limits would continue when units turn over, and enforcement would rely largely on tenants and the Attorney General through the courts. The hearing began with expert testimony from Whitney Airgood-Obrien of Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, who described Massachusetts’ severe rental affordability problems and reviewed research on rent regulation, noting mixed evidence on supply and quality effects but clearer evidence that rent regulation can slow rent growth and improve tenant stability. Supporters of the petition, led by Carolyn Chow of Homes for All Massachusetts, argued that rent stabilization is needed now to curb displacement and runaway rent increases, especially for low- and moderate-income renters. Laura Frost described her Arlington building being bought by a large firm that sought steep rent hikes, and said rent control would help prevent “tenant flipping” and community displacement. Dave Foley of SEIU Local 509 said the issue affects workers’ ability to live near their jobs, while Dr. Mark Paul and Tram Huang argued that the evidence supports well-designed rent stabilization, that vacancy decontrol encourages displacement, and that the policy should be seen as a complement to new housing production rather than a substitute. Committee members questioned supporters about the 10-year new construction exemption, the lack of vacancy decontrol, and whether rent stabilization could discourage development; supporters responded that the measure targets corporate rent gouging, that small landlords are protected by exemptions, and that production and rent stabilization can coexist. Opponents, including representatives of small property owners, chambers of commerce, and labor/building trades, argued the proposal would hurt small landlords, reduce investment, and slow housing production. They said operating costs such as taxes, insurance, and maintenance are rising faster than the proposed cap, and warned that the measure would reduce property values and tax revenue and could push investment to other states. Several opponents emphasized that many Massachusetts housing providers are mom-and-pop owners rather than large corporations, and said the policy would make it harder to maintain and improve housing. Committee members pressed both sides on the need for a middle ground between affordability and preserving development incentives, but no vote was taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Having a proper conversation about this is exactly what the third part of this bill proposes.
• extends to private conversations only and not the conversations held on the public record.
• I just thought I would interject it into the conversation.
• I just thought I would interject it into the conversation.
• I actually just had a great conversation with Andrew.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused on several climate and utility-related bills, especially H. 3449/S. 2292 to expand the municipal fossil fuel-free building demonstration program from 10 to 20 communities and related home rule petitions for Somerville and other municipalities. Witnesses from Somerville, Salem, Worcester, Cambridge, Newton, Arlington, Wellesley, Watertown, and the Massachusetts Municipal Association argued that local governments should be allowed to opt into fossil fuel-free or net-zero building standards, citing climate goals, environmental justice concerns, housing production, and data showing all-electric construction can cost about the same as or less than mixed-fuel construction. Committee members repeatedly pressed witnesses for cost data and asked for written follow-up, while also discussing whether strong environmental standards affect housing supply; witnesses responded that the main housing constraints are financing and that they would provide more data from local projects and state studies. A second major topic was H. 3564, which would require gas companies to provide municipalities with detailed multi-year pipe replacement plans, allow local review and objections, and limit reimbursement for projects not previously disclosed except in emergencies. Municipal leaders and advocates said the bill would improve coordination of street work, reduce disruption and costs, and help cities plan for electrification, network geothermal, and non-pipeline alternatives. Testimony from Wellesley, Cambridge, Arlington, Newton, and others emphasized repeated problems with last-minute gas main work, the need for advance notice, and the value of municipal participation in planning gas system retirement and alternatives. The committee also heard testimony on the “tactical transition” bills, S. 2249/H. 3539, aimed at managing the gas-to-clean-energy transition. Supporters from Gas Transition Allies, Rewiring America, and 350 Mass said the bills would require joint gas-electric planning, create an advisory council, eliminate subsidies for new gas hookups, shift investment toward repairs and clean alternatives, protect workers through retraining, and make utility plans more transparent. They argued these changes would reduce ratepayer costs, avoid stranded gas assets, and support orderly decarbonization. In addition, HEET testified on H. 3541, which would update greenhouse gas accounting to better reflect methane’s short-term climate impact, and H. 3543, which would establish a framework for managing shared thermal resources and thermal energy networks; committee members asked several questions about the meaning, ownership, and consumer-cost implications of the proposed “thermal commons.” No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• It takes me back to a conversation that I—one thing, I'll tell you, data is everything, right?
• And I always say, A conversation that I have. One thing, I'll tell you, data is everything, right?
• I remember having a conversation once around blood pressure cuffs.
• This conversation we're having right now really reminds me of the conversation we had in the chamber
• And so we will have conversations about how to make sure that that does not continue to happen.

Bills: SB274, SB301, SB249

Keywords: healthcare, life-sustaining treatment, patient preferences, POLST, advance directive, medical orders, hospital discharge, pregnancy, patient care, discharge planning, healthcare policy, substance use, harm reduction, syringe services, needle exchange, overdose prevention, naloxone, opioid antagonist, drug paraphernalia, syringe

Summary: The committee heard and advanced several measures related to health care, public health, and patient protections. House Concurrent Resolution 148, urging a statewide educational strategy on menopause, was presented as a workplace awareness measure and received supportive comments from members before being released. Senate Bill 274, updating Delaware’s MOST program to POLST and clarifying capacity determinations and documentation for end-of-life orders, also drew supportive testimony from medical and nursing groups and was released. House Bill 458, limiting local backflow preventer requirements for certain low-hazard buildings, was presented as a cost-relief measure for homeowners and small businesses; DHSS expressed concerns but said it was willing to work on amendments and a sunset provision, and the bill was released. Senate Joint Resolution 18, designating August 31, 2026 as International Overdose Awareness Day and ordering flags at half-staff, was released after brief supportive remarks. The committee then considered Senate Bill 339, a technical correction to the advance health care directive form clarifying that an agent’s authority for voluntary mental health admission cannot exceed 72 hours, consistent with existing law. Members asked detailed questions about how the 72-hour limit works and whether it applies to voluntary directives; the sponsor and a Disability Rights Delaware witness explained that the bill only aligns the form with current statute and does not expand authority. The bill was released. House Bill 301, requiring hospitals to create discharge plans for pregnant patients discharged while showing signs of labor, prompted extensive discussion. The sponsor and supporters said it would improve safety, transportation planning, and aftercare, while some members noted Delaware hospitals already do much of this work and questioned whether codifying it was necessary; supporters emphasized maternal mortality disparities and the need for guardrails. The bill was released. Senate Bill 196, creating ownership disclosure requirements for long-term care facilities and resident notice rules after ownership transfers, was presented as a transparency measure for seniors and families and was released after supportive testimony from the Delaware Nurses Association and elder-care advocates. Senate Bill 320, expanding pharmacists’ independent prescriptive authority for certain non-controlled medications and allowing opioid use disorder medications under standing order, with added malpractice reporting requirements in Senate Amendment 2, was supported by pharmacists and nurse practitioners as an access-to-care measure and was released. Senate Substitute 1 for Senate Bill 161, establishing a unified licensing and oversight framework for adult behavioral health providers under DSAM, was presented as a patient-protection measure; providers supported the goal but cautioned that regulations must be workable, and the substitute was released. Senate Joint Resolution 19, directing DHSS to study strategies to reduce health care costs, was released with a note reflecting concerns about broadening the analysis to include additional cost drivers and alternatives. Finally, Senate Bill 249 with Senate Amendment 2, modernizing harm-reduction programs and paraphernalia laws, generated the most extended debate: supporters framed it as life-saving public health policy, while opponents raised concerns about needle litter, community impacts, and whether the approach facilitates addiction. Despite the objections, the bill was released.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a national conversation. Multiple agencies are involved.
• It's a national conversation, and I would like Arizona to be ahead of the curve.
• I just... this is a conversation to be had. Fraud exists, and we want to root it out.
• Now, in terms of extending the scope from 25 to 26, I'm open to that conversation.
• Or it's a new system... ...25 to 26, I'm open to that conversation.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So was this like a conversation that you had or was it in writing? A contact.
• So was this like a conversation that you had or was it in writing?
• I know that the conversation around term limits is something that has been going on for a while.
• How'd that conversation go? Really well.
• Always open to conversations with him, and I would suggest following his lead.

Summary: The Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee met on May 20, 2026, with a quorum present and no minutes available for approval. The committee first heard HB 181, which would let the legislative auditor review income tax data to verify eligibility for Medicaid and, at LDH’s request, SNAP. The auditor said the work would be limited to internal data testing under sharing agreements and not disclosed to third parties. After questions about privacy and duplication, the bill was reported favorably to the floor without objection. The committee then took up HB 906 on presidential preference primaries and party nominating petitions. The Secretary of State and bill author said the measure would let major parties decide whether unaffiliated voters may participate in their primaries, with 180 days’ notice to the state, and would keep party rules consistent within presidential years so elections can be programmed properly. Several senators raised concerns that the bill would disenfranchise no-party voters and give parties too much control, but supporters said both major parties had approved the approach. The committee voted 4-3 to report the bill favorably. Members also advanced HB 398, which would require the judiciary to use the federal GSA meal per diem rate instead of the current higher state judicial rate; HB 1052, which strengthens confidentiality protections for child abuse investigations handled by child advocacy centers and multidisciplinary teams; HB 1245, which protects witness criminal history records from unintended public release in clerk of court records; HB 202, which requires state civil service or hiring agencies to notify applicants when a vacancy is filled or they are rejected; HB 540, which requires disclosure of paid digital election advertising; HB 9, designating stuffed shrimp as a Louisiana specialty; HB 1057, extending the validity of absentee-by-mail applications for military voters from one year to two; HB 225, proposing a constitutional amendment to limit governors to two lifetime terms; HB 177, allowing retired court reporters to contract with former public employers; and HB 459, requiring disclosure when campaign materials use AI, with amendments adopted after discussion of First Amendment and campaign finance concerns. The committee also rejected an amendment to HB 1057 that would have expanded Sunday early voting in certain parishes. After the bills, the committee held confirmation hearings for James Kelly and Charles Wilkinson to the Board of Supervisors of the Louisiana Community and Technical College System, both of whom described education and workforce development backgrounds and were favorably received.

Transcript Highlights:

• If it’s a right-to-know issue, we can have that conversation.
• I am certainly willing to continue to have those conversations as time moves forward and try to figure
• But like I said, I appreciate the conversation.
• Or you can choose, you're welcome to sit down during the inquiry and I can finish my conversation.
• Doesn't need to be part of this conversation. It's not germane to this discussion.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Summary: The House convened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, approved the House Journal for the previous day by a vote of 123-1, and then recognized a series of special guests, including a physician, several sheriffs, school groups, interns, and other visitors. The chamber then moved into third reading and perfection of bills, with some measures sent to the informal calendar before debate began on House Bill 1758, which would make daylight saving time permanent in Missouri. Supporters argued it would end the twice-yearly clock change and could improve productivity and convenience, while opponents raised concerns about dark winter commutes, safety, and health effects. The bill passed third reading by a vote of 107-31 with two present. The House next took up House Bill 3329, which repeals expired or unused tax credits to clean up the statutes and reduce Department of Revenue reporting work. Members from both parties generally supported the bill as a government-efficiency and accountability measure, though one member questioned whether removing credits from statute could make them harder to revive later. The bill was perfected and printed without opposition. The chamber then considered House Bill 3405, which clarifies that the state and local tax (SALT) pass-through entity provision is a deduction rather than a tax credit, with sponsors saying the change would streamline Department of Revenue processing and improve the accuracy of tax credit reporting. That bill was also perfected and printed after discussion about tax administration and fiscal note implications. Finally, the House debated House Bill 2426, a parental rights bill covering education, medical, privacy, and related decisions for children, and applying a strict-scrutiny standard to government actions affecting those rights. Debate focused heavily on whether the bill merely codified existing protections or expanded parental authority in ways that could affect school records, recordings, evaluations, truancy, medical consent, and district transparency requirements. The House adopted House Amendment 1 by a vote of 98-25 with six present, an amendment addressing IEP procedures and requiring parental consent for certain major changes unless due process requirements are met. Further debate continued on the underlying bill, with supporters emphasizing parental involvement and opponents warning about unintended consequences for schools, child welfare, and existing legal standards.

Transcript Highlights:

• So that can be another conversation.
• And I would say also that this is going to be an ongoing conversation.
• So if you have further comments or further things you want, An ongoing conversation.
• And so we will continue this conversation. I thank everybody for their participation.
• And so we will continue this conversation. I thank everybody for their participation.

Summary: The Select Committee on Older LGBTQ Californians held an inaugural hearing focused on the health care and support landscape for older LGBTQ Californians, including people aging with HIV and transgender, gender non-conforming, and intersex seniors. Opening remarks emphasized the long history of discrimination faced by older LGBTQ adults, the growth of the aging LGBTQ population, and the need to translate existing state commitments into concrete services. Senators highlighted concerns about nursing home vulnerability, the aging of people living with HIV, and the impact of federal actions and Medicaid cuts on California’s safety net. The first panel featured Justice in Aging, CalHHS, the Department of Aging, and the Aging and HIV Institute. Testimony described widespread inequities, including discrimination, social isolation, economic insecurity, and gaps in culturally competent care. State officials outlined the Master Plan for Aging, the first statewide survey of LGBTQIA older adults, gender-affirming care protections in Medi-Cal, and efforts to improve coordination across departments. Advocates argued the state has been too slow to respond to federal threats and that services are often hard to find or fragmented. Committee members pressed the departments on how survey findings are being turned into action, how rural and underserved communities are being reached, and whether more formal stakeholder coordination or “no wrong door” access systems are needed. The second panel focused on seniors living with HIV. A long-term survivor gave emotional testimony about the “survivorship penalty,” loss of benefits, housing insecurity, and the need for legal and navigation support, housing assistance, and protection from outdated disability standards. The Department of Aging reported on implementation of SB 258, which added HIV status to the definition of greatest social need for area agencies on aging; it said 20 of 33 area plans now identify HIV as a target population and many include specific strategies, such as LGBTQIA mental health connections programs. The Office of AIDS described Project Cornerstone, Ryan White, ADAP, HOPWA, the Medi-Cal waiver, and PrEP-AP, noting these programs serve thousands of older clients and rely on whole-person case management. Case management testimony underscored persistent needs for medication subsidies, transportation, food, and housing. Committee members questioned how ADAP rebate funds might be used, how SB 258 is enforced across local agencies, and how to reduce administrative barriers and auto-connect eligible people to benefits. The final panel began with the Department of Social Services outlining protections for TGI seniors in licensed care facilities, including SB 219’s nondiscrimination requirements and related provider notices and resident rights materials. The hearing remained focused on identifying service gaps, improving coordination across aging, health, and social service systems, and ensuring state programs better reflect the lived experience of older LGBTQ Californians.