Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> including</c> members and top staff, including members and top staff, including superintendent<00
• Forcing professional staff official.
• We have staff that is helping us. We have assistance from multiple people.
• We have staff that is helping us.
• So I just staff or support that we do.

Committee: Senate Elections

Transcript Highlights:

• Any questions for staff?
• Any questions for staff? Okay.
• Any questions for staff?
• Questions for staff?
• Questions for staff? Senator Fincham. Questions for staff? Senator Fincham. Thank you again, Mr.

Bills: SB1246 , SB1338 , SB1428 , SB1443 , SB1501 , SB1566 , SB1571 , SB1645 , SB1646 , SB1663 , SB1688 , SB1805 , SB1808 , SB1825 , SCR1023 , SCR1029 , HB2079 , HB2080 , HB2130 , HB2239 , HB2324 , HB2375 , HB2610 , HB2619 , HB2620 , HB2716 , HB2745 , HB2749 , HB2837 , HB2857 , HB2968 , HB4064 , HB4066 , HB4087 , HB4130 , HCR2048 , HCR2058

Committees: Senate Government , Senate Senate Government Committee of Reference

Keywords: homeowners associations, foreclosure, common expense liens, condominiums, special assessments, unit owner, public benefits, eligibility, immigration status, documentation, Arizona law, noise pollution, environmental nuisances, building permits, urban development, public health, administrative procedure, regulatory rights, small businesses, state agencies

Transcript Highlights:

• hearing on House Bill 1997 concerning the indemnification of commercial servers of liquor, with the staff
• And that concludes the staff briefing. Thank you. Thank you, Peter.
• Do we have any questions for staff?
• Any other questions for staff? Great. The prime sponsor is here.
• Any other questions for staff?

Summary: The House Consumer Protection & Business Committee held a public hearing on a bill concerning indemnification of commercial liquor servers. Staff explained that under current law, both licensed retailers and individual servers can face administrative penalties and civil liability if they sell alcohol to someone apparently under the influence, and the bill would require the retailer to pay the server’s defense costs and any civil judgment, while preserving existing administrative penalties and causes of action against the retailer. Members asked about how the current penalty structure works, whether the bill would change administrative enforcement, and how liability would apply in situations involving a lone server or multiple establishments; staff said the bill did not specifically address those scenarios. The prime sponsor said the bill was intended to protect lower-paid servers from losing everything in civil lawsuits when they were not the ones who violated the law, while still holding accountable those who actually break the rules. She emphasized that the bill was meant to start a broader conversation and that the term “indemnification” was used as a placeholder for the policy concept. Members raised questions about whether the retailer’s insurance would cover judgments, how the proposal would interact with existing liability rules, and whether cannabis service would be included; the sponsor said cannabis was not currently covered but might be if treated like alcohol in the future. A representative of the Washington Hospitality Association testified that liquor liability insurance is increasingly expensive and difficult to obtain, with fewer insurers, higher premiums, and some businesses unable to get coverage. The association said the bill would not materially change current law because licensees already defend themselves and employees in civil suits, but it would not stop servers from being named in lawsuits, which can still harm workers’ backgrounds and future employment. The association argued the larger problem is lawsuit abuse and urged broader reforms to damages, demand rules, and joint-and-several liability. The hearing ended with the committee closing public testimony on the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• EMERGENCY DRILLS, THIS IS TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROPER RETENTION AND SAFETY OF STUDENTS AND STAFF.
• >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS UF SURVEY THEIR STAFF AND THEIR STAFF IDENTIFIED CONCERNS THAT ARE IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE
• I BELIEVE DUE TO SOME TURNOVER IN STAFF THERE WERE MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF HOW TO CALCULATE THAT AND FAU
• BEFORE WE PROCEED DOES ANYBODY HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMITTEE STAFF HAS RELATED TO THIS?
• I WOULD LIKE TO ACCEPT A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND DIRECT OUR STAFF TO SEND A LETTER

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, members, and staff.
• With the increased staff in the registration-related branches, With the increased staff in the registration-related
• We appreciate all the work of your staff in putting this together.
• Of course, our amazing staff. Thank you, you guys.
• Of course, our amazing staff. Thank you, you guys.

Summary: The joint Assembly and Senate hearing examined whether California’s pesticide program is meeting its public-protection goals, with opening remarks from committee chairs emphasizing the state’s large pesticide use, the need to transition toward sustainable pest management, and ongoing oversight including a state audit of DPR and county agricultural commissioner enforcement. The hearing also referenced recent concerns in Ladera Ranch about childhood cancer cases and the need for transparent investigation and community access to information. Panel one focused on human health and the regulatory framework. Dr. Anna Maria Mora described long-running CHAMACOS research showing widespread pesticide exposure in farmworker families, links to neurodevelopmental, respiratory, liver, and cardiometabolic harms, and greater impacts on children facing social adversity. She urged biomonitoring, better linkage of exposure data to health outcomes, regulation of chemical classes and mixtures, stronger buffers around homes and schools, and more community-based research. Professor Tim Malloy explained California’s two-tier system of DPR registration and county permitting, said the state’s program is strong but falls short on cumulative exposure analysis and alternatives assessment, and argued that DPR and counties need better tools, training, and funding to implement legally required protections. Committee members asked about biomonitoring, class-based regulation, and how to make pesticide data more usable for the public. Panel two brought testimony from environmental justice and farmworker advocates, who argued that California remains behind other jurisdictions by allowing highly hazardous pesticides, including 1,3-dichloropropene and paraquat, and by relying on a funding structure tied to pesticide sales. Witnesses said DPR often moves too slowly on reevaluations, rarely assesses combined exposures, and does not adequately account for health, environmental, and social costs or conflicts of interest involving pest control advisors. They also described inconsistent county-level implementation, weak outreach, and confusion over whether DPR or county agricultural commissioners are responsible for enforcement, and urged faster phaseouts, tiered fees, stronger local protections, and clearer accountability. Panel three represented regulated entities and agricultural stakeholders, who supported the goals of safer pest management but stressed that California’s registration process must be more predictable, transparent, and timely. They said AB 2113’s staffing and timeline reforms were important, but backlog and delays still hinder access to newer, lower-risk products and can hurt both consumer and agricultural uses. Agricultural witnesses also emphasized the need to invest more in pest prevention, invasive species detection, extension support, farmer training, and practical incentives for sustainable pest management. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, with members pressing witnesses on timelines, implementation, funding, and the division of responsibility between DPR and county agencies.

Transcript Highlights:

• The state appropriation covers faculty and staff salaries.
• Going into the fall 2025 semester, half of our TRIO staff was missing.
• This administration has put a lot of stress on students and faculty and staff as well.
• Not only our students, but our staff as well, our faculty.
• , but also to the retention of the faculty and staff, as well as the students.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Racial Equity, Civil Rights, and Inclusion

Summary: The Joint Committee on Racial Equity, Civil Rights, and Inclusion held an informational hearing on “Protecting Equity in Higher Education” and emphasized that no bills were being heard. Members and witnesses focused on the effects of recent federal actions on DEI, admissions, financial aid, student loans, international students, and campus equity efforts in Massachusetts. Opening remarks from the co-chairs and the chair of Higher Education highlighted Massachusetts’ investments in free community college, expanded financial aid, and early college programs, while warning that federal policy changes could undermine those gains. Testimony from BU law professor Jonathan Feingold argued that many DEI practices remain legally defensible after Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, and that the decision did not end all race-conscious or equity-oriented efforts. He said the Trump administration’s anti-DEI actions and funding threats were legally suspect and had created confusion and a chilling effect. Bahar Akman-in-Boden of the Hildreth Institute testified that proposed federal cuts to TRIO, Gear Up, Pell Grants, SEOG, work-study, and student loan programs would disproportionately harm low-income, first-generation, Black, Latino, and other underserved students, and urged the state to prepare hold-harmless and advising supports using Fair Share revenue. Commissioner Noe Ortega described Massachusetts’ long history of equity in higher education and said the state has expanded aid, success programs, and early college, but still has work to do on attainment and completion. He said the state responded to SFFA by creating ACARE and continuing to defend equity practices, while also warning that federal disruptions and “dear colleague” letters have created uncertainty. In the second panel, state university leaders and campus officials said federal threats to Pell, DEI grants, Medicaid, and international student policies could affect access, campus operations, and the economy; they stressed that most state university graduates stay in Massachusetts and that institutions are continuing their equity practices despite federal pressure. Roxbury Community College’s president said RCC remains committed to open access and inclusion, noted enrollment growth, and said executive orders do not change existing law or the college’s obligations.

Transcript Highlights:

• So whereas staff previously were investigating reports... ...staff to do that work.
• So whereas staff previously were investigating reports of abuse or neglect by a caregiver, those staff
• So whereas staff previously were investigating reports of abuse or neglect by a caregiver, those staff
• But that is across all staff that we have.
• , Staff, and so they do not have a full caseload.

Bills: HR267 , HCR105 , HCR107 , HCR110 , HCR113 , HCR114 , SB4 , SB52 , SB57 , SB145 , SB152 , SB194 , SB237 , SB333 , SB433 , SB483 , SCR37

Committee: House Health and Welfare

Keywords: diabetes, amputation, amputations, diabetic foot ulcer, peripheral artery disease, PAD, wound care, podiatry, vascular disease, endocrinology, limb salvage, health policy, public health, healthcare costs, insurance coverage, Louisiana Department of Health, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Louisiana Center for Health Innovation, patient education, screening

Transcript Highlights:

• Of course, the committee staff.
• Good afternoon, Chair and staff.
• Good afternoon, Chair and staff.
• Good afternoon, Madam Chair and staff. This is right here in my ear.
• Good afternoon, Madam Chair and staff. This is right here in my ear.

Transcript Highlights:

• Longer ER wait times, delays in care, strain on staff and beds.
• Can we retain staff for high census times? Quite literally, can we?
• Thank you to you and your staff for putting this important hearing together.
• Good evening, Chair and members of the committee and staff.
• Appreciate you and your staff. Good evening, Chair and committee members.

Committee: House Health

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'll follow up with your staff. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Where are we?
• to other TCAC staff.
• to other TCAC staff.
• So it is a lot of work on the part of the cities and county staff.
• So it is a lot of work on the part of the cities and county staff.

Transcript Highlights:

• previously, both staffs...
• We intended to do with staff previously, both staffs, and again, just so you know how the process works
• , when we get done with conference, the staffs write the bill, both of them, nonpartisan staffs, they
• First and foremost, always the staff. The staff is the heartbeat of this building.
• The staff is the heartbeat of this building.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, approval of the prior day’s journal by roll call, and a long series of special guest introductions recognizing family members, interns, public servants, nonprofit leaders, students, and a park ranger honored for life-saving actions. Committee reports and Senate messages followed, including Senate nonconcurrence on numerous amendments to Senate Bill 1421 and the appointment of a conference committee on another bill. The main floor action centered on budget conference committee reports, especially House Bill 2002 on public education. Members debated whether the conference version fully funded the foundation formula, with supporters arguing it maintained record-level funding and opponents saying it left schools about $190 million short and relied on uncertain funding sources such as blind pension, lottery, and possible ARPA dollars. After a substitute motion to send the bill back to conference was defeated, the House adopted the conference report 83-68 and then third-read and passed House Bill 2002 by the same margin. The House then took up House Bill 2003 on higher education, where members discussed a move toward a future performance-based funding model while keeping current funding flat; the conference report passed 119-28 and the bill was third-read and passed 109-32. The chamber next considered House Bill 2004, covering the Departments of Revenue and Transportation. Debate focused on transportation funding, rural roads, and a small local safety project in Lebanon that had already been addressed by MoDOT. The conference report was adopted 128-21 and the bill was third-read and passed 127-27. Finally, the House began debate on House Bill 2005 for the Office of Administration and IT-related functions, with the sponsor and supporters emphasizing IT accountability, the Movers project, and the transfer of some staff to DSS; the transcript ends during discussion of that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• on board will attorneys, and other staff on board will cost<00:14:58.480><c> the</c><00:14:58.600><c
• The staff also have a hard job, and the way that we have been able to support our staff, I think, is
• </c> for the staff.
• Um the staff also for the staff.
• ,</c><00:19:57.240><c> I</c> have been able to support our staff, I have been able to support our staff

Transcript Highlights:

• , technical staff that we have on our team that would be happy to probably examine.”
• We currently do not have staff capacity. And that's what's reflected in our proposal.
• So to add on, we are implementing some of the plan already through the staff that we have.
• So just a couple of things that I want to go over about what the staff are currently doing.
• They rely on volunteers, but in order to make this all work, they need full-time staff.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy heard budget overviews and several budget change proposals from CalRecycle, CalEPA, and DTSC. CalRecycle outlined its proposed 2026-27 budget of 987 positions and $1.9 billion, and members focused on edible food recovery funding under SB 1383, beverage container recycling fees and infrastructure under SB 1013, plastic packaging reduction under SB 54, and composting implementation under SB 279. CalRecycle said edible food recovery has recovered more than 300 million meals but lacks ongoing funding, explained that beverage container processing fees are set by statute and reflect higher recycling costs for difficult-to-recycle materials, and noted that SB 54 implementation will include a pollution prevention mitigation fund for legacy plastic cleanup. The committee also discussed the need for more composting capacity and the role of volunteer cleanup groups, while public commenters urged continued funding for food recovery, composting, and landfill response. CalEPA presented its department overview and a proposal to strengthen landfill response and enforcement, emphasizing climate, air quality, water, and cleanup priorities. Secretary Garcia described the agency’s work on methane monitoring, toxics reduction, drinking water compliance, Exide cleanup, pesticide alternatives, and implementation of AB 617, while also noting the agency’s response to federal rollbacks. Members pressed CalEPA on landfill fires and subsurface elevated temperature events, especially at Chiquita Canyon, asking about authority, scientific resources, and when intervention should occur. CalEPA said it has authority to respond but needs more coordinated technical and enforcement capacity, and later presented a $5.1 million, 12-position multi-agency proposal involving CalEPA, CalRecycle, DTSC, and the Water Board to address current landfill events and improve future prevention and response. DTSC and the Board of Environmental Safety presented several proposals tied to reform implementation, hazardous waste oversight, and emerging waste streams. DTSC reported progress in clearing its permit backlog, advancing safer consumer products regulations, and continuing Exide cleanup, while seeking additional resources for cost recovery and enforcement, PFAS work, recycling infrastructure for solar panels and lithium batteries, and a new statewide planning division to implement the hazardous waste management plan and consolidate reporting systems. The Board of Environmental Safety described its oversight role, public meetings, permit appeals process, and fee-setting authority, and said its priorities include permit appeals, hazardous waste plan oversight, and performance metrics. Members questioned whether DTSC was creating too many new subdivisions, but the department said the new structure is needed to handle growing workload and modernize regulation. Public testimony generally supported the landfill proposal, DTSC consumer product enforcement, water board staffing, and continued funding for food recovery and composting programs.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to now allow us to talk about the House and Senate staff. Okay.
• and the Senate security staff into statute so that they would have access to certain information.
• This amendment takes our House staff and the Senate House staff, and all we're doing today is putting
• And again, what that will do is allow our House staff and the Senate security staff to be recognized
• It's just a word move, and it would allow our staff to have access to critical information.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and approval of the previous day’s journal by roll call vote, 102-1. Members then used points of personal privilege and special guest introductions to recognize constituents, advocacy groups, students, school officials, physical therapy advocates, domestic violence service providers, and others. One member delivered an emotional statement about the arrest of the suspect in his sister’s 26-year-old murder case, thanking law enforcement and prosecutors involved in the cold-case investigation. The chamber then took up House Bills 2097 and 1905, a measure to expand an agriculture education pilot program into a statewide option for elementary schools. Supporters from both parties described it as a way to teach children where food comes from, connect agriculture with literacy and math, and encourage interest in farming and related careers. The House adopted the committee substitute and perfected and printed the bills. Members also considered House Bill 2167, which would codify and expand authority for Attorney General investigators and, through amendments, address House and Senate security officers and certain other state officers. Debate centered on whether the bill improperly broadened the original subject and whether it would give too much arrest power or create safety and constitutional concerns. One amendment to the amendment failed on a roll call, 62-68-1, but the House adopted the St. Charles amendment 61-43 and then perfected and printed HB 2167 as amended. Finally, the House took up House Committee Substitute for House Bills 2747 and 2047, a clean-slate/automatic expungement bill. Supporters said it would give people who have completed their sentences a second chance and improve access to jobs and stability; the sponsor also explained a related change limiting death-penalty sentencing in hung-jury cases so judges would not impose death in that circumstance. The House adopted an amendment requiring expungements to be shared with consumer reporting agencies, then adopted the committee substitute and perfected and printed the bill as amended. The House also announced upcoming events and then recessed until 2 p.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• Audrey Vasek, staff to the committee.
• I will turn to staff.
• And staff report. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• This question is for staff.
• Audrey Vasek, staff to the committee.

Bills: HB1974 , HB2265 , HB2452

Committee: House Housing

Keywords: land bank, land banking authority, affordable housing, housing crisis, housing supply, public corporation, public housing authority, nonprofit housing, tax-foreclosed property, blight remediation, redevelopment, anti-displacement, equity, redlining, racial segregation, deed restriction, affordability covenant, property tax exemption, excise tax exemption, predevelopment

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'm going to walk you through staff introductions and talk to you about staff.
• The last two staff that I'd like to introduce are new.
• First of all, I just want to say thank you to all of the LSO staff.
• Our staff works all summer and into the fall, helping agencies get budgets together.
• We work closely with LSO staff to close those books out.

Summary: The Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee opened the session with roll call, confirmed a quorum, and introduced new members, staff, and pages. Co-chairs and staff then reviewed JFAC’s role as the legislature’s main budget committee, the committee’s daily schedule, and the resources available through legislative staff, the impact team, and the newly released 2026 Legislative Budget Book and related budget tools. The committee received a detailed briefing from the Division of Financial Management on the JFAC calendar and then from Governor’s Budget Director Lori Wolf on the governor’s FY 2026 and FY 2027 budget recommendations. Wolf said the budget is balanced but tight, relying on a mix of ongoing reductions and one-time actions rather than reserve fund transfers. Major budget actions included a 3% ongoing reduction across most state agencies, reversions of certain one-time balances to the general fund, no recommended pay increase for state employees or teachers, and higher employee health insurance costs. The budget also proposed reductions or policy changes in Medicaid, virtual school funding, Idaho Digital Learning Academy, and some transportation and water-related funds, while preserving funding for public safety, education, water, and transportation priorities. Members questioned the assumptions behind the budget, especially the projected ending balances, the use of one-time transfers, the impact of rising health insurance costs on employees, the effect of Medicaid cuts on services and cost shifts, and the rationale for reductions to online education and IDLA. Several members also asked about the proposed federal tax conformity changes, including the timing of implementation and the treatment of Idaho’s existing R&E tax credit. Wolf said the conformity estimate was based on Tax Commission analysis and that the administration was not recommending use of the budget stabilization fund. No votes or formal actions were taken; the committee concluded by noting that the Economic Outlook Committee would meet later in the week and that JFAC would continue budget hearings the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• Including $50,000 for board members and staff travel and training expenses.
• Agency's pay plan for investment staff.
• If I may, I have a couple of staff members with me.
• We did some things for staff that we hope retain the qualified team.
• It is a calling, and it is something that my staff and I believe in.

Transcript Highlights:

• I was not allowed to speak freely and when I tried to call my dad, the staff ripped the phone from my
• We appreciate the hard work of the author, her staff as well as the committee staff in engaging in extensive
• First I would like to really appreciate the hard work of the author staff, Amaya, and the committee staff
• and committee staff for her amendments removing the section related to the Government Claims Act.
• I want to also acknowledge our staff that have been working hard on both of our bills.

Committee: House Education

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> eviction action, we're seeing uh staff eviction action, we're seeing uh staff and<01:14:57.200><
• </c> to kill the security staff. to kill the security staff.
• ,</c> the staff, the staff, the<01:25:42.440><c> and</c><01:25:42.800><c> the</c> the and the the and
• Staff will send out a message if it's going to be a little bit later than that.
• </c> just watch your emails I guess staff just watch your emails I guess staff will<01:35:58.920><c>

Committee: Senate Judiciary and Public Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• No, it was New Mexico Tech staff and Oil Conservation Division staff. Okay.
• No, it was New Mexico Tech staff and oil conservation division staff. Okay.
• Our staff is relatively small; I have about 70 technical staff members.
• We like to accomplish as much as we can at the staff-to-staff level.
• The board and its staff have spent a, and DOE and its staff have spent a considerable amount of time

Summary: The committee first heard a presentation from the Environment Department on PFAS contamination in private wells in La Cienega, Santa Fe County. Staff said the plume likely came from historic use of firefighting foam associated with airport and National Guard fire-training activities, with possible additional contribution from septic systems and consumer products. They described the contamination as affecting about 200 private wells, the short-term response of providing residential filters through a $2 million legislative appropriation, and ongoing work to define the plume’s full extent, identify responsible parties, and consider longer-term regional water solutions. Members asked about filter costs, replacement schedules, disposal of used cartridges, follow-up testing, health studies, and whether cleanup or containment had begun; the department said cleanup would follow once the plume is fully mapped and that DOH is soliciting interest in a blood study. The committee also discussed the need to track disposal of PFAS filters and the possibility of broader statewide capacity for similar work. The committee then took up abandoned uranium mine cleanup. NMED and EMNRD staff reviewed the new uranium mine reclamation program created by HB 164, the state dashboard tracking sites, and the FY26 appropriation of $20 million for neglected contaminated sites, of which $12 million is being used for neglected uranium mines and the remainder for other contaminated sites. They said six contractors were hired, three priority sites in Grant County are moving forward quickly, and additional sites are being prepared for possible FY27 work. Members pressed for details on how funds are spent, why the revolving fund remains unfunded, how federal, state, tribal, and landowner requirements are coordinated, where contaminated material will be moved, and whether cleanup could also address homes built with contaminated materials. Staff said the work is governed by multiple regulatory layers, that the state is seeking an additional $25 million for FY27-FY28 plus a time extension, and that partnerships with tribes would require longer-term agreements. The committee also discussed federal cleanup efforts and the new Good Samaritan law, with members urging stronger advocacy for New Mexico sites, including tribal lands, and asking whether the Attorney General should pursue legal action against federal parties responsible for legacy contamination. Staff explained that some sites are already covered by settlement funds tied to responsible parties, while neglected sites are those with no responsible party and no other cleanup program. The committee then heard from EMNRD on Class VI carbon sequestration primacy. Staff said New Mexico currently has no operating Class VI wells, about 27 Class II acid-gas injection wells are operating, and only a small number might be candidates for conversion. They explained that the state’s primacy application would require more public outreach than federal rules alone, and that cost estimates for post-injection site care are based on long planning horizons, with some costs borne by operators and some by the state after closure. No votes were taken on the substantive items discussed; the committee approved the prior meeting minutes and took a brief recess between presentations.