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:

• 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:

• 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

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:

• <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:

• 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:

• 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:

• testimony um I do have written testimony testimony um I do have written testimony so<01:33:11.880
• I'd also like to note um some testimony I'd also like to note um some testimony<03:53:40.560> that
• And I think Mayor Claremont's testimony—I mean, I'm sorry, Mayor Lett's testimony about the Claremont
• I do have written testimony.
• um sorry if you have written testimony um sorry if you have written testimony we'd<04:09:47.640>

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll take any public testimony on this topic. Is there any public testimony on the TRIP report?
• We'll take any public testimony on this topic. We'll take any public testimony on this topic.
• :27.720> railroad public testimony on railroad railroad public testimony on railroad railroad
• You didn't have any Oh, public testimony? testimony? testimony?
• Any public testimony<00:42:36.080> on testimony on testimony on that<00:42:37.480> particular

Keywords: 916, all

Summary: The committee opened by taking roll for the Joint Transportation, Highways, and Military Affairs Committee and noting that 20 topics had been submitted for discussion, including one late addition. Members were asked to number the topics for reference, and the chair explained that each presenter should give a brief overview before the committee returned to the dais for questions and possible ranking or action. No votes were taken during the portion provided. The first topic was a request from the Associated General Contractors of Wyoming to have TRIP, a third-party transportation research organization, present a report on Wyoming’s highway system. The report is intended to identify transportation needs and 25 priority projects, and the committee generally supported hearing the report and methodology directly from TRIP. The next topic combined two similar railroad safety proposals. Representative Chestek described a bill addressing train length, wayside detectors, and track inspections, citing the East Palestine derailment and concerns about reduced inspection frequency. Committee members raised questions about federal preemption and enforcement authority; Chestek said states can be more protective of safety where federal rules leave gaps, and WYDOT said it would need additional expertise and staffing to administer such a program. No public testimony was offered on the railroad topic. The committee then heard two proposals from the Wyoming Military Department. One would study Tricare subsidies for mental health providers by comparing Tricare reimbursement rates with other insurers, gathering de-identified data on eligible members and provider participation, and then returning to the committee with findings before any legislative recommendation. Members discussed whether the issue might fit better in Labor, Health, and Social Services, but the military department said it believed the committee had a strong connection to the topic. The second military topic would study Service Group Life Insurance for state active duty, comparing state and federal death benefits for Guard members to identify any shortfalls. The committee also briefly discussed a VSO program review raised by Representative Neff, focusing on the number of veterans service officers and retention, but no action was taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• will, but we will have some testimony will, but we will have some testimony that<00:04:47.840>
• And this is something that in testimony on the House side people said that they've never seen that in
• We heard hours of testimony and also heard from legal counsel as to the need for the bill.
• Any other public testimony in the room? >> There's online. >> Okay.
• to hear their testimony via email.

Bills: HB0003, HB0117, HB0041

Keywords: pregnancy centers, abortion, pro-life, healthcare, women's rights, state regulation, civil rights, freedom of speech, informed consent, civil liability, coercion, healthcare rights, law enforcement, death benefits, retirement, survivor support, public safety, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We do have public testimony.
• We do have public testimony.
• We do have public testimony.
• We do have public testimony.
• We do have public testimony.

Summary: The Health and Human Services Committee heard and advanced four member bills. CS/HB 303 would require nurses to complete the existing two-hour human trafficking prevention course before initial licensure, rather than waiting until renewal; the sponsor said this closes a gap for new nurses, and supporters from the Florida Nurses Association and other groups said it would improve early identification and reporting of trafficking victims. Members asked whether the bill changed reporting duties, and the sponsor said it did not. The bill passed unanimously, 24-0. PCS/HB 1069 would treat independent sanctioning authorities as qualified entities for background screening purposes and allow an unscreened athletic coach to work only if directly supervised by a screened coach. The sponsor said the measure is intended to help families and youth sports organizations while keeping children safe, and members discussed how it would apply to Little League and whether disqualifying offenses would still bar work with children. The bill received support from several organizations and passed 25-0. HB 491 would allow batterers intervention programs to offer voluntary faith-based content alongside required cognitive behavioral therapy, without mandating participation. Supporters argued the bill restores options for clients seeking faith-based counseling and said it does not use taxpayer funds or impose religion; members emphasized the voluntary nature of the program. The bill passed 24-0. HB 569 would change how the Agency for Persons with Disabilities organizes forensic client services by grouping clients based on clinical needs rather than legal charges, which the sponsor said would improve efficiency and reduce duplication. The agency and Florida Smart Justice Alliance supported the bill, and it also passed unanimously, 24-0. The committee then adjourned.