Transcript Highlights:

• Your signature is an affirmation that the testimony you give is true.
• Courtney, thank you so much for your testimony and your willingness to serve.
• Great job on your testimony.
• Great job on your testimony.
• I know that there's been testimony here.

Bills: HCR95, HB4, HB244, HB615, HB648, HB1049, HB1201

Keywords: sales tax, exemptions, credits, rebates, uniformity, legislative rules, fiscal report, constitutional convention, Louisiana constitution, electoral process, government structure, delegate elections, delegates, state election, ratification, Louisiana, public meetings, broadcast, transparency, government accountability

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, so with that said, students begin your testimony.
• And welcome spectators and testimony.
• And if you remember the testimony to my original bill, there was a lot of reticence.
• Um thank you for your testimony<00:47:24.000> last<00:47:24.359> Monday.
• Um the 250th is testimony last Monday.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• State your name and proceed with your testimony. >> Thank you. Uh, my name is Graham Owens.
• State your name and proceed with<00:03:10.000> your<00:03:10.720> testimony.
• with your testimony. with your testimony. >> Thank<00:03:11.680> you.
• Owens for your testimony, not just your testimony, but your conservative think tank.
• Owens for your testimony, not just your testimony,<00:37:13.440> but<00:37:13.680> your

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 936, an author’s bill requiring cost-benefit analysis before agencies move forward with major rulemaking. Chair Nash moved the bill, the A2 author’s amendment was adopted, and the bill was then discussed as amended. The sponsor said the goal was not to eliminate rulemaking, but to require agencies to “show their work” by analyzing costs, benefits, and assumptions before rules are adopted. Supporters, including representatives from Americans for Prosperity and the Pacific Legal Foundation, argued the bill would improve transparency, uniformity, and accountability in rulemaking. They cited federal and other state models, especially Virginia, and said similar requirements already exist in several states. They also pointed to public support for requiring cost-benefit analysis and said the bill could help agencies avoid costly or poorly thought-out regulations, reduce litigation risk, and improve legislative oversight through notice to committees and publication of preliminary and final analyses. Several members raised concerns. Representative Luger Nikolai said cost-benefit analysis is already part of existing law through SONARs and that the legislature, not agencies, should be the first line of review; she also worried the bill would force dollar valuations on qualitative factors such as accessibility. Representative Craft said the bill could allow unelected officials to negate policy choices already made by the legislature if benefits do not exceed costs. Representative Fryberg said the bill appears to require full analysis even for minor housekeeping rules and may overemphasize dollar-based benefits. Chair Nash and supporters responded that the bill is meant to impose a uniform check on agencies and that many current rules already operate without sufficient legislative oversight. The discussion ended with members expressing both support and opposition, and a roll call was requested, though no final vote was included in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• we heard some very compelling testimony we heard some very compelling testimony yesterday<00:47:
• >> Thank you for your testimony. >> Thank you for your testimony.
• <01:59:50.400> So provide a little more testimony. So provide a little more testimony.
• Will you be submitting your testimony? Will you be submitting your testimony?
• <03:07:22.720> and And as I listened to the testimony and And as I listened to the testimony

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• your testimony your testimony today<00:08:08.240> seeing<00:08:08.639> no<00:08:08.919
• "Thank you for your testimony."
• "Thank you for your testimony."
• even given your testimony.
• testimony here uh the one question that testimony here uh the one question that I<01:50:58.440> did

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Please proceed with your testimony. Please proceed with your testimony.
• . testimony. testimony.
• Um we're going to on with testimony.
• We've heard testimony, the A7 amendment.
• Um, you know, here with Mitch Magnus's testimony and other testimonies, I read through these testimonies

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I appreciate the testimony. Uh, Mr.
• I appreciate the testimony. Uh, Mr.
• I appreciate the testimony. Uh, Mr.
• I appreciate the testimony. Uh, Mr.
• ,<01:02:36.960> over stated earlier in my testimony, over stated earlier in my testimony,

Bills: HF3642, HF2700, HF3615

Keywords: virtual currency, kiosks, prohibition, customer payouts, cryptocurrency regulation, consumer privacy, data privacy, health data, sensitive data, Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act, personal data, data broker, targeted advertising, geofencing, location tracking, health care privacy, patient privacy, consent, minor privacy, children's privacy

Summary: The Commerce Finance and Policy Committee met on House File 3642, which would prohibit virtual currency kiosks in Minnesota. The bill was laid over, and the committee adopted a DE1 author’s amendment. Chair Kaggel and Representative Perryman described the measure as a response to widespread scams using crypto kiosks, especially against older adults and other vulnerable people, and said they would continue working with the Department of Commerce and other stakeholders. Testimony from law enforcement and advocates strongly supported the ban. A St. Cloud police sergeant and a Woodbury detective described cases in which victims lost large sums, said the current safeguards and refund rules are being bypassed, and argued that the kiosks are difficult to investigate because funds move quickly and often overseas. An AARP Minnesota volunteer also supported the bill, saying kiosks are a preferred tool for scammers and that existing protections have not kept pace with the problem. The Department of Commerce said it strongly supports the bill and reported that it has received 120 complaints over three years involving nearly $1 million in reported losses, with 2025 the worst year so far. The main opposition came from CoinFlip’s general counsel, who argued that the problem is fraud generally, not kiosks themselves, and said Minnesota already has consumer protections, including refunds for eligible victims. He urged stronger regulation rather than a ban, citing blockchain analytics, hold periods, and 24-hour customer service as alternatives. Committee members then asked questions about how long kiosks have operated in Minnesota, how many there are, who owns them, and the scale of losses; Commerce said there are hundreds statewide, operated by a variety of companies, and that reported losses are likely undercounts.

Transcript Highlights:

• Merch, we thank you for your testimony. Let's hear other testimony.
• <00:29:03.120> today, we could hear all the testimony today, we could hear all the testimony
• Let's we thank you for your testimony.
• Anybody else in the room have testimony? Anybody else in the room have testimony?
• testimony. What is your pleasure? testimony. What is your pleasure?

Bills: SF0102, SF0113

Keywords: energy transmission, load growth, Wyoming energy authority, transmission planning study, public utilities, regional cooperation, hand count audit, ballots, election integrity, transparency, voting system, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• > from<01:03:12.160> the testimony.
• Um, first want to point out testimony.
• Do we have questions for your testimony.
• I'm testifying testimony this morning.
• All right, seeing none, thank you for testimony.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:19:48.960> Fantastic ahead with your testimony. Fantastic ahead with your testimony.
• Thank you very much for your testimony Thank you very much for your testimony and<00:40:20.320><
• ahead with your testimony. ahead with your testimony.
• Go ahead with your testimony.
• proceed with your testimony. proceed with your testimony.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Goldberg and of course Adair Weishar for their testimonies. First of all, on behalf of Dr.
• Adair Weishar for their testimonies. Adair Weishar for their testimonies.
• And I have to say my questions shifted continuously during the testimony.
• So, what I heard at the testimony much.
• testimony today about imperfect bills. testimony today about imperfect bills.

Keywords: 00:00:00 Call to Order/Roll Call 00:01:10 Discussion of 25RS HB 414 00:44:26 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 414 00:50:25 Discussion of 25RS SB 27 00:53:44 Roll Call Vote on 25RS SB 27 00:55:49 Discussion of 25RS SB 93 00:57:57 Roll Call Vote on 25RS SB 93 00:59:29 Discussion of 25RS SB 132 01:37:39 Roll Call Vote on 25RS SB 132 01:40:55 Discussion of 25RS SB 153 01:42:05 Roll Call Vote on 25RS SB 153 01:43:46 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The Health Services Committee met with a quorum and took up House Bill 414 with a committee substitute. The bill, described by sponsors and supporters as a continuation of prior maternal-health legislation, was framed as a clarification of medical standards and an effort to improve care for women and families facing complicated pregnancies. Representative Tate, Representative Nemes, Adair Wushar of Kentucky Right to Life, and Dr. Jeff Goldberg of ACOG Kentucky all testified in support, saying the substitute was developed collaboratively to reduce confusion in the law and help physicians provide evidence-based care without fear of criminal penalties. Supporters said the committee substitute was intended to define what is not an abortion under Kentucky law and to spell out medical treatments for conditions such as miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, molar pregnancy, sepsis, hemorrhage, preeclampsia, premature rupture of membranes, and fetal demise. Dr. Goldberg said current statutes contain significant ambiguity and have created unintended barriers to treating pregnancy complications, including emergency situations, and he gave examples of patients who were delayed or harmed because physicians were uncertain about what the law allowed. Representative Nemes said the measure was the result of unusual cooperation among groups that do not usually agree and described it as a first step toward fixing a discrete problem. Representative Wilner raised concerns that the language could effectively require a patient to be in severe distress before treatment is clearly permitted and that it was too prescriptive about how physicians should manage miscarriages. In response, Dr. Goldberg and the sponsors said the substitute was not perfect, was meant as a short-term solution, and was designed to give doctors more confidence in providing routine, medically necessary care for pregnancy complications. The transcript indicates the committee substitute was adopted, but no final vote on the bill itself is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Furthermore, please note that the guideline for measures heard in the committee is to allow for testimony
• for no more than two minutes when called for tweener testimony.
• an opening statement, a closing statement, and each lead witness will have two minutes to provide testimony
• Thanks all for your testimony. I appreciate that. I will call up Dr.
• Jackson as our witness testimony next time.

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee met for a hearing with one item on the agenda, ACA 18, a constitutional amendment to expand student representation on the University of California Board of Regents. The authors, Assemblymembers Celeste Rodriguez and Anamarie Farías, said the measure would double the number of student seats on the board and ensure both an undergraduate and a graduate student voice, arguing that students are the primary stakeholders and should have more meaningful input on decisions affecting tuition, housing, basic needs, and other campus issues. The authors accepted committee amendments that cleaned up language and the appointment process for student regents and their nonvoting designates. Supporters included UC student leaders, alumni, and advocacy groups. Testimony emphasized that the UC system has far more students than the current single voting student regent can represent, that student input has helped shape policies on housing, basic needs, campus policing, and tuition, and that the UC should align with the CSU and community college systems, which already have two student voting members. No opposition testimony was presented. Committee members voiced support, with several noting the importance of student voice and representation. The committee then voted to pass ACA 18 as amended and re-refer it to the Committee on Appropriations. The roll call ultimately finished at 9-0 in favor, and the measure was reported out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any public testimony on the amendment? Members, any debate on the amendment?
• Chair Botana: Thank you for your testimony, thank you for coming.
• Is there public testimony on the bill?
• Public testimony on the amendment? Debate on the amendment?
• Public testimony on the bill?

Transcript Highlights:

• Your signature is an affirmation that the testimony you give is true.
• Your signature is an affirmation that the testimony you give is true.
• Thank you guys for your testimony.
• So thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right.
• So thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Insurance met on May 6, 2026, and first reported HB 1241 favorably. That bill, by Chairman Furman, requires insurers to check with DCFS before paying certain insurance settlements to determine whether the recipient owes delinquent child support, and to withhold and remit arrears if found. DCFS explained that Louisiana already has intercepts and other collection tools, but no current mechanism for insurance settlements. Senators raised concerns about notice to obligors and about liability if insurers fail to withhold, but the bill was advanced without objection. The committee then heard HB 870, which would require health insurers and PBMs to cover lower-cost generic or biosimilar drugs when available and to use utilization management no more restrictively on those drugs. Supporters said the bill would improve access and lower patient costs by using wholesale acquisition cost as the comparison point. Opponents, including Louisiana Blue and the AFL-CIO, argued that WAC ignores rebates and net cost, could force plans to cover higher-cost biosimilars first, and could increase premiums and disrupt ERISA and fully insured plan design. The committee adopted a technical amendment set and then a second amendment set that added notice and reporting requirements tied to net cost calculations, and HB 870 was reported favorably as amended. Several other bills were moved with little or no opposition. HB 1176, concerning Medicare Advantage coverage for integrative cancer treatments such as cold cap therapy, cryotherapy, and acupuncture, was amended to change the effective date and then reported favorably. HB 1196, dealing with colorectal cancer screening follow-up colonoscopies, was also amended and reported favorably. HB 1162, a consumer protection bill requiring DOI to verify that a contractor named on a first-party property damage check is licensed in Louisiana, was amended and reported favorably. HB 826, which modernizes insurance referral rules to allow referrals by email or website address, was reported favorably. The committee also heard HB 1151 on insurer investment limits and solvency protections, and HB 1236 on pharmacy reimbursement and copay maximizer programs; both drew substantial testimony and concern, especially over retroactivity, PBM cost allocation, and whether copay maximizers shift costs to patients, but the transcript cuts off before final action on HB 1236.

Transcript Highlights:

• Why don't you go ahead and proceed with your testimony?
• to this testimony. to this testimony. Welcome,<00:07:54.240> uh,<00:07:54.320> Mr.
• ahead and proceed with your testimony? ahead and proceed with your testimony?
• Um next on the testimony list Thank you.
• Um next on the testimony list is<00:26:03.200> Jason<00:26:03.640> Bratton.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Shaver, please introduce yourself and proceed with your testimony. I also forgot my purple.
• Next on my >> Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for hearing our testimony today. I remain available if there are questions later.
• Thank you for your testimony. >> Great. Thank you for your testimony.
• Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony. >> Hello.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee heard House File 3585, as amended, which would create an interagency council on student attendance and re-refer the bill to education finance. Representative Keeler moved the bill and an A1 amendment that corrected the council’s placement from the Department of Children, Youth, and Families to the Department of Education; the amendment was adopted. Keeler and Representative Bakeberg described the bill as the product of several years of bipartisan work on chronic absenteeism and truancy, emphasizing that attendance problems involve multiple systems and require ongoing coordination rather than a single-agency response. Testimony was strongly supportive. Matt Shaver of Allies cited statewide chronic absenteeism data and argued that schools cannot solve the problem alone because root causes such as housing, transportation, health, and economic instability lie outside school control. Assistant Commissioner Angela Mansfield of MDE said the task force and pilot districts showed coordination gaps and supported the council, while also noting MDE’s Compass staff would need permanent funding to carry out the work. Ashley High Totower of Hennepin County’s BEET program said attendance is a public health, child welfare, transportation, housing, and economic issue, and Kenneth Avon of the Minneapolis Foundation said absenteeism is an ecological problem requiring cross-sector coordination. Student witnesses also supported the bill but urged stronger youth representation. Henry Brick of Catalyst for Systems Change said students understand the causes of absenteeism best and proposed expanding student seats on the council from one to five. Ava Northrup of the Minnesota Youth Council said youth voices should be more than symbolic and suggested two youth representatives, one from the metro and one from greater Minnesota, plus additional youth task forces or panels. In member discussion, Representative Lawrence questioned whether the council duplicated existing MDE work, asked who would coordinate the group, and raised the lack of a sunset; Keeler and Bakeberg said the Department of Education would coordinate and that a sunset could be considered later. Other members asked about fiscal impact, and the chair said a fiscal note had been requested and the bill would move on to education finance.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's exactly right and I know with the testimony we had, it was very compelling and finance on the
• testimony or document may incriminate the person, Texas law grants the person complete immunity from
• testimony or evidence may incriminate the person, meaning that the testimony or evidence a person and
• This aligns with the Federal Rule for Congressional Testimony, which is limited to testimony immunity
• Now, unfortunately, I wasn't there for the testimony, so I'm not sure what reasons they gave.

Bills: SJR 12, SJR 81, SCR 39, SB 22, SB 32, SB 241, SB 393, SB 414, SB 458, SB 464, SB 568, SB 583, SB 609, SB 660, SB 693, SB 731, SB 732, SB 746, SB 783, SB 785, SB 897, SB 993, SB 996, SB 1008, SB 1029, SB 1035, SB 1036, SB 1120, SB 1122, SB 1147, SB 1163, SB 1188, SB 1197, SB 1209, SB 1227, SB 1245, SB 1267, SB 1307, SB 1321, SB 1332, SB 1386, SB 1394, SB 1396, SB 1470, SB 1494, SB 1537, SB 1596, SB 1598, SB 1610, SB 1664, SB 1814, SB 1822, SB 1841, SB 1948, SB 2065, SB 2155, SB 2406, SB 2407, SJR 12, SJR 36, SJR 81, SJR 50, SJR 4, SCR 22, SCR 12, SCR 39, SB 765, SB 62, SB 666, SB 888, SB 687, SB 847, SB 1248, SB 504, SB 305, SB 296, SB 284, SB 241, SB 304, SB 1023, SB 204, SB 609, SB 670, SB 850, SB 854, SB 413, SB 1346, SB 1033, SB 1220, SB 1073, SB 810, SB 1539, SB 447, SB 1119, SB 1505, SB 1215, SB 1302, SB 583, SB 673, SB 681, SB 1172, SB 955, SB 957, SB 1120, SB 541, SB 266, SB 1415, SB 53, SB 1352, SB 785, SB 1450, SB 1502, SB 1566, SB 414, SB 1062, SB 711, SB 746, SB 1404, SB 1448, SB 507, SB 1026, SB 1349, SB 1355, SB 1433, SB 1434, SB 1596, SB 1403, SB 667, SB 1059, SB 1567, SB 310, SB 311, SB 505, SB 1209, SB 1210, SB 1470, SB 264, SB 1029, SB 1358, SB 1364, SB 1569, SB 1376, SB 1228, SB 519, SB 1350, SB 462, SB 827, SB 1585, SB 1396, SB 1484, SB 1273, SB 927, SB 1227, SB 1229, SB 1353, SB 1464, SB 1709, SB 1729, SB 1733, SB 1744, SB 1772, SB 1841, SB 1147, SB 1008, SB 2016, SB 1173, SB 1163, SB 996, SB 568, SB 1370, SB 1321, SB 1101, SB 860, SB 993, SB 693, SB 1610, SB 1537, SB 1332, SB 1307, SB 963, SB 493, SB 984, SB 619, SB 1122, SB 455, SB 522, SB 1057, SB 1239, SB 1254, SB 1255, SB 1259, SB 1341, SB 1664, SB 1877, SB 464, SB 1277, SB 32, SB 732, SB 660, SB 731, SB 921, SB 268, SB 1822, SB 1188, SB 1589, SB 397, SB 1058, SB 1036, SB 1267, SB 2112, SB 1930, SB 532, SB 1035, SB 2155, SB 508, SB 292, SB 291, SB 901, SB 1333, SB 1436, SB 1494, SB 964, SB 779, SB 1378, SB 2312, SB 1719, SB 1386, SB 287, SB 2143, SB 1245, SB 261, SB 1247, SB 1948, SB 2406, SB 2407, SB 1882, SB 1197, SB 1814, SB 618, SB 38, SB 393, SB 2065, SB 1371, SB 1394, SB 1365, SB 2243, SB 2226, SB 2039, SB 1919, SB 1895, SB 1598, SB 1493, SB 1810, SB 1791, SB 1706, SB 1644, SB 1238, SB 783, SB 458, SB 22, SB 651, SB 897, SB 1809, SB 1080, SB 745, SB 826, SB 989, SB 1320, SB 1437, SB 2320, SB 2289, SB 1171, SB 664, SB 1637, SB 2064, SB 868, SJR 40, SJR 27, SCR 38, SCR 37, SB 1079, SB 1243, SB 1504, SB 1851, SB 1879, SB 2237, SB 1257, SB 2034, SB 1522, SB 883, SB 249, SB 1318, SB 1151, SB 596, SB 1191, SB 226, SB 570, SB 870, SB 991, SB 60, SB 365, SB 1067, SB 1786, SB 326, SB 1401, SB 1592, SB 1728, SB 1265, SB 586, SB 529, SB 217, SB 209, SB 1923, SB 1559, SB 1839, SB 387, SB 1874, SB 1872, SB 1873, SB 1921, SB 1883, SB 1677, SB 95, SB 1620, SB 1838, SB 2024, SB 2429, SB 1999, SB 511, SB 2309, SB 2166, SB 871, SB 510, SB 33, SB 2420, SB 1860, SB 1541, SB 1316, SB 1314, SB 1313, SB 1426, SB 1398, SB 1869, SB 1750, SB 1871, SB 36, SB 855, SB 1233, SB 760, SB 2425, SB 2037, SB 1758, SB 1759, SB 2365, SB 1924, SB 762, SB 1271, SB 1818, SB 605, SB 1405, SB 1762, SB 1968, SB 1977, SB 2077, SB 2148, SB 2321, SB 1967, SB 1662, SB 1663, SB 2124, SB 2204

Keywords: parental rights, education, constitutional amendment, school choice, child education, tax exemption, ad valorem, tangible personal property, income production, border security, southern border, federal immigration policy, illegal immigration, cartels, transnational cartels, fentanyl, drug trafficking, human trafficking, Operation Lone Star, Texas border

Summary: The meeting primarily focused on educational reforms, particularly in special education funding. Notably, Senator Bettencourt laid out the transformative impacts of Senate Bill 568, which aims to lift a historical cap on special education funding that affected approximately 775,000 students. The discussions included plans for an intensity-based funding model that could ensure fair distribution of resources depending on individual needs, thereby enhancing educational support for diverse learning requirements. Senators acknowledged past failures in the special education framework, emphasizing the necessity of moving towards a system that is transparent and focused on delivering adequate services.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your testimony. Next up, Devica Baker. Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony. Next up, Devica Baker. Bill. Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony. Alicia Kelleher, come on up.

Summary: The committee first confirmed Heather L. Turnbull to the Florida Commission on Community Service, with the motion adopted and the confirmation recommended favorably. Members then took up SPB 7022, which sets Florida Retirement System employer contribution rates beginning July 1, 2025, updates rates to address unfunded actuarial liability, and allows certain elected officers to elect a DROP accumulation; a technical title amendment was adopted, the bill was submitted as a committee bill, and it was reported favorably as a committee bill. The committee then heard extensive debate and public testimony on SB 1710, which would restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion-related policies, trainings, and activities in state agencies, state-funded contractors and grantees, and medical institutions of higher education. Sponsor Senator DiCeglie said the bill is intended to prevent state agencies and contractors from using state funds for DEI programs and to limit state agencies from adopting DEI-related official positions; he also said the medical-school portion would likely be amended out later. Senator Polsky and others questioned the bill’s breadth and how it would affect health-related grants, public universities, historically Black institutions, recruitment, and contractor training. Public testimony was overwhelmingly opposed, with speakers arguing the bill would harm health care, education, access, and inclusion; a few supporters said DEI is ideological, can undermine merit, and should not be used by state agencies or publicly funded institutions. After debate, Senator Polsky argued the bill was confusing, overbroad, and harmful to serving diverse communities, while Senator Arrington said it was an overreach into private business and could have significant fiscal impacts. Chair Fine closed by saying DEI is political ideology and that the bill is meant to ensure government focuses on talent rather than identity. SB 1710 was then reported favorably on a roll call vote, with Senator Arrington voting no and the remaining members voting yes. The committee then began SB 1678, relating to entities that boycott Israel, and heard the sponsor’s explanation of a delete-all amendment that would expand and clarify state restrictions on dealings with entities engaged in boycotts of Israel, including certain nonprofits, foreign educational institutions, and grants; the amendment was adopted, and the sponsor and a witness began answering questions when the transcript cuts off.

Transcript Highlights:

• As outlined in the posting, today's hearing will be invited testimony only.
• OK, well, Eddie, thank you for your testimony.
• Chairman, I am neutral on my with my testimony today, um.
• I also provided some additional information in my written testimony.
• Thank you, Ed, for, for your testimony. Carr, you're up. Thank you, Mr.

Transcript Highlights:

• Hearing will be invited testimony only.
• That's a testimonial from a Clean Energy Incubator client that was part of the A&M.
• Well, Eddie, thank you for your testimony.
• Chairman, I am neutral with my testimony today.
• I also provided some additional information in my written testimony.

Keywords: 1184, house, all