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:

• have a lot of testimony to get to today. have a lot of testimony to get to today.
• > has testimony.
• here today and probably the testimony here today and probably the testimony<04:46:44.798> of<
• That is my testimony. I'm happy project. That is my testimony.
• Appreciate your testimony.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I've learned through testimony tonight I've learned through testimony tonight today<01:09:18.239>
• and that's that's my testimony and that's that's my testimony thanks<01:17:19.679> thank<
• <02:13:29.840> here uh language uh Supply the testimony here uh language uh Supply the testimony
• I appreciate that testimony.
• <04:20:40.159> on markets to change we heard testimony on markets to change we heard testimony

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, we're going to be limiting testimony to three minutes this morning.
• Go ahead. you're here to read testimony, um if you're here to read testimony, um if you'd<00:08:33.200
• So, do you like you for your testimony.
• NHMA opposes testimony already provided.
• And with that, I'll end my testimony. And with that, I'll end my testimony.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

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:

• We heard testimony the other day, a lady who lost three children.
• And thank you for your testimony.
• Would he have to disclose that he, in fact, has been paid for his testimony?
• Would he have to disclose that he, in fact, has been paid for his testimony?
• “The vote that he, in fact, has been paid for his testimony on other cases?

Bills: HB79, HB437, HB646, HB1089, HB1099, SB173, SB180, SB260, SB424, SB476

Keywords: carbon capture, damages, environmental liability, legal liability, site restoration, expert witness, expert testimony, witness fees, pecuniary interest, conflict of interest, civil procedure, evidence law, Louisiana evidence code, Louisiana civil litigation, expert report, discovery, pretrial disclosure, litigation transparency, settlement, damages award

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 476, which would add clearer warning language for garnishees responding to interrogatories and create a limited procedure for a new trial when a garnishee shows it never held property of, or owed money to, the judgment debtor. After brief questioning about how garnishment works, the bill was reported favorably without objection. The committee then took up Senate Bill 260 on youth athletics, which establishes required injury-mitigation training content for youth sports coaches, including emergency preparedness, concussions, heat injuries, overuse injuries, equipment, heart defects, and sudden cardiac effects. An amendment was adopted to remove language allowing the department to spend donated funds to purchase the courses, and the bill was reported as amended. House Bill 79, which removes the damage threshold for carbon capture release, was also reported favorably after sponsor testimony that carbon capture should be treated like other industries and not receive a special liability cap. Senate Bill 424, clarifying service by mail, delivery, or electronic means by defining “counsel of record” as someone who actually represents a party, was reported favorably as well. Senate Bill 180, a constitutional amendment allowing the surviving spouse of a deceased disabled veteran to make a one-time transfer of an expanded property tax exemption to another qualifying property, received a ballot-language amendment and a 6.8A report, then was reported as amended. The committee spent the most time on House Bill 1089, which creates “care accounts” for future medical damages in delictual actions. The sponsor and supporters said the bill would ensure future medical awards are actually used for medical care, function like a money market/HSA-style account, and potentially reduce costs; opponents raised concerns about the account being owned by the judgment debtor, possible reversion of unused funds to the wrong party, unclear mechanics for payment, and the impact on survivors of trafficking and sexual abuse who may need flexible, non-billing-code-based care. Several members suggested exclusions or clarifying amendments for med-mal, intentional torts, and sexual abuse victims, and the bill was reported favorably on a 6-1 vote after amendment. Finally, House Bill 437 was taken up, which bars expert witnesses from having a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case. An amendment excluding criminal traffic and juvenile proceedings was adopted, and members discussed that the bill would prohibit contingent-style expert fee arrangements while still allowing cross-examination about an expert’s prior testimony and payment history. The discussion emphasized that the rule would apply to both plaintiffs and defendants.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Today's hearing is held in a hybrid format and will work as follows: testimony will be taken both in
• Testimony is limited to three minutes.
• The committee accepts written testimony and will continue to do so following the hearing.
• If you have any copies of written testimony with you, you may hand them to one of our committee staff
• Seeing none, we'll have to wait eagerly for written testimony when you get an opportunity.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Transportation held a hybrid hearing with House Chair Jim Arciero and Senate Co-Chair Brendan Crighton presiding. The committee heard testimony on two bills. The first, House Bill 4723, would designate a bridge in honor of the Ferreira Brothers. Christopher Pereira gave extensive family testimony describing the brothers’ World War II service, their postwar community work, and the family’s immigrant background. He said the bridge naming would be a fitting tribute, and noted support from the Chumsford Board of Selectmen. Representative Rodney Elliott also spoke in support as a co-sponsor, praising the family’s military and civic service. Representative Vanaugh Howard was called but did not testify due to technical issues. The second bill, House 4691, was described by Representative Steven Hawkins as a bipartisan effort with Representative Pease to address and commemorate the harms suffered by veterans exposed to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. Hawkins said the measure recognizes the sacrifices of affected veterans and should be straightforward. No other testimony was offered on the bill, and no questions were raised by committee members. After hearing testimony on both bills, the committee took no recorded votes during the transcript. The hearing concluded with a motion to adjourn, a second, and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• WE ARE GOING TO GO STRAIGHT INTO PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
• ANY OTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY PICTURE WE NONE, WE ARE IN DEBATE.
• ANY PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THIS BILL? SHOWING ON. SENATORS, ANY DEBATE ON THE PROPOSED BILL?
• SHOWING NONE, PUBLIC TESTIMONY. I DO NOT HAVE ANY. ANY DEBATE?
• SHOWING NONE, ANY PUBLIC TESTIMONY? I SEE NONE. ANY DEBATE? SHOWING NONE.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <03:02:31.120> about<03:02:31.600> specific testimony that tells us about specific testimony
• And there's testimony that project done.
• Martinez, for your testimony. Nice Mr. Martinez, for your testimony.
• <03:36:25.439> in well, I understand through testimony in well, I understand through testimony
• So, fast testimony. Be back at 1:30.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Would I heard testimony about a MOU template? Yes.
• I want to apologize in advance if my testimony doesn't follow protocol.
• You can see my complete remarks in my written testimony.
• limit um of 3 minutes on testimony limit um of 3 minutes on testimony now<02:03:53.400> just<
• <02:29:54.080> I um as you'll see in in my testimony I um as you'll see in in my testimony

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Education Policy and Administration Committee heard testimony on HB 222, which would repeal the requirement that a chartered public school and the resident school district sign a memorandum of understanding on how students with disabilities will receive special education services. The prime sponsor, Rep. Peggy Balboni, said the bill was requested by the New Hampshire Association of Special Education Administrators and the New Hampshire Alliance for Public Charter Schools. She argued that federal and state law already require districts to provide FAPE and that the MOU requirement has created extra work, legal costs, and delays without improving services. She said many MOUs remain unsigned, but students are still receiving services and complaint numbers have not changed. Rep. Mooney also supported repeal, calling the MOU duplicative and impractical because IEPs and 504 plans already govern services. Testimony from Jane B. Brulu of the special education administrators’ association and Beth McLure of the charter schools alliance echoed that view, saying the MOU has not helped students, has added hours of work and legal fees, and has mostly been a source of disputes over funding and service costs. McLure said her school has worked with more than 15 districts and has always been able to reach agreements, though the first year of the requirement took substantial time and money. Committee members asked about the original purpose of the law, unsigned MOUs, and whether disputes could be resolved without the requirement. A representative from the Department of Education said the MOU was originally proposed to address reports that some students were not getting services on time and to provide some oversight, but the department has no authority to order charter schools or districts to agree and no appeal process if they cannot. The department also said it does not currently audit charter school special education services because it lacks authority to monitor charter schools directly, and it urged the committee to consider some alternative oversight if the MOU requirement is repealed. The hearing on HB 222 was then closed, and the committee announced it would begin the hearing on HB 699 after a short break.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will go to the phone line for support testimony for Assembly Bill 442.
• Oh, you are coming for neutral testimony? Oh, sorry. Neutral testimony, please.
• We'll go back to neutral testimony for Assembly Bill 462.
• Anybody else wishing to come forward in the neutral testimony? Thank you.
• Anybody else wishing to come forward in the neutral testimony?

Keywords: 909, all

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.