Bills: SJR37, SJR57, SCR8, SB8, SB108, SB125, SB251, SB318, SB378, SB379, SB396, SB472, SB487, SB503, SB533, SB565, SB583, SB608, SB650, SB686, SB689, SB707, SB710, SB763, SB854, SB875, SB916, SB924, SB925, SB958, SB961, SB965, SB987, SB988, SB1006, SB1019, SB1021, SB1024, SB1026, SB1038, SB1146, SB1185, SB1194, SB1202, SB1252, SB1253, SB1330, SB1343, SB1362, SB1497, SB1498, SB1499, SB1527, SB1547, SB1596, SB1697, SJR36, SJR12, SJR57, SJR37, SCR22, SCR12, SCR8, SB925, SB1362, SB565, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB504, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB1497, SB1499, SB1498, SB241, SB304, SB621, SB1023, SB1024, SB686, SB371, SB204, SB609, SB670, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB447, SB875, SB406, SB985, SB965, SB1119, SB1505, SB1194, SB1253, SB1215, SB1302, SB856, SB583, SB673, SB681, SB1172, SB1252, SB378, SB608, SB955, SB957, SB988, SB1019, SB1021, SB1120, SB251, SB541, SB379, SB1737, SB266, SB1415, SB1527, SB125, SB599, SB1330, SB53, SB916, SB1352, SB785, SB710, SB472, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB414, SB1062, SB961, SB1038, SB578, SB711, SB746, SB942, SB1404, SB1448, SB1738, SB108, SB8, SB318, SB507, SB533, SB689, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB1146, SB763, SB667, SB1059, SB617, SB1567, SB503, SB16, SB310, SB311, SB396, SB505, SB1209, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB924, SB1029, SB1185, SB1202, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1697, SB1376, SB1228, SB519, SB878, SB1350, SB462, SB1535, SB827, SB1585, SB207, SB1207, SB1619, SB1396, SB920, SB1484, SB1273, SB1741, SB7, SB927, SB1227, SB1229, SB1353, SB1366, SB1464, SB1709, SB1729, SB1733, SB1744, SB1772, SB1816, SB1841, SB2188, SB1147, SB879, SB1008

Keywords: voter ID, citizenship, election integrity, constitutional amendment, voting rights, central bank digital currency, CBDC, Federal Reserve, digital dollar, digital currency, cashless payments, financial privacy, cybersecurity, government surveillance, financial surveillance, money laundering, terrorism financing, illicit finance, banking policy, monetary policy

Bills: SJR57, SCR8, SB8, SB14, SB24, SB108, SB112, SB125, SB213, SB251, SB315, SB318, SB371, SB378, SB379, SB472, SB487, SB502, SB513, SB565, SB621, SB650, SB689, SB707, SB710, SB761, SB763, SB815, SB854, SB875, SB896, SB916, SB925, SB958, SB961, SB965, SB973, SB987, SB990, SB995, SB1006, SB1018, SB1019, SB1024, SB1026, SB1146, SB1194, SB1198, SB1253, SB1330, SB1343, SB1362, SB1379, SB1497, SB1498, SB1527, SB1532, SB1547, SB1596, SJR36, SJR12, SJR57, SCR22, SCR12, SCR8, SB565, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB14, SB1006, SB504, SB925, SB995, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB815, SB1379, SB1497, SB1499, SB1498, SB241, SB304, SB621, SB1023, SB1024, SB686, SB112, SB371, SB204, SB609, SB670, SB502, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1362, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB987, SB1539, SB447, SB875, SB406, SB985, SB965, SB1119, SB1505, SB24, SB1194, SB1253, SB1215, SB1532, SB1302, SB856, SB650, SB583, SB673, SB213, SB681, SB1172, SB1252, SB378, SB1343, SB608, SB487, SB955, SB957, SB988, SB990, SB1019, SB1021, SB1120, SB251, SB958, SB761, SB541, SB315, SB379, SB1018, SB1737, SB266, SB1415, SB1527, SB125, SB599, SB1330, SB53, SB916, SB896, SB1352, SB973, SB785, SB710, SB472, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB414, SB1062, SB1547, SB961, SB1038, SB513, SB578, SB711, SB746, SB942, SB1404, SB1448, SB1738, SB108, SB8, SB318, SB507, SB533, SB689, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB1198, SB1146, SB763, SB667, SB1059, SB617, SB1567, SB503, SJR37, SB16, SB310, SB311, SB396, SB505, SB1209, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB924, SB1029, SB1185, SB1202, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1697, SB1376, SB1228, SB519, SB878, SB1350, SB462, SB1535, SB827, SB1585, SB207, SB1207, SB1619, SB1396, SB920, SB1484, SB1273, SB1741

Keywords: central bank digital currency, CBDC, Federal Reserve, digital dollar, digital currency, cashless payments, financial privacy, cybersecurity, government surveillance, financial surveillance, money laundering, terrorism financing, illicit finance, banking policy, monetary policy, payments system, commercial banks, Texas Legislature, concurrent resolution, federal reserve digital currency

Bills: SJR57, SCR8, SB8, SB14, SB24, SB108, SB112, SB125, SB213, SB251, SB315, SB318, SB371, SB378, SB379, SB472, SB487, SB502, SB513, SB565, SB621, SB650, SB689, SB707, SB710, SB761, SB763, SB815, SB854, SB875, SB896, SB916, SB925, SB958, SB961, SB965, SB973, SB987, SB990, SB995, SB1006, SB1018, SB1019, SB1024, SB1026, SB1146, SB1194, SB1198, SB1253, SB1330, SB1343, SB1362, SB1379, SB1497, SB1498, SB1527, SB1532, SB1547, SB1596, SJR36, SJR12, SJR57, SCR22, SCR12, SCR8, SB565, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB14, SB1006, SB504, SB925, SB995, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB815, SB1379, SB1497, SB1499, SB1498, SB241, SB304, SB621, SB1023, SB1024, SB686, SB112, SB371, SB204, SB609, SB670, SB502, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1362, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB987, SB1539, SB447, SB875, SB406, SB985, SB965, SB1119, SB1505, SB24, SB1194, SB1253, SB1215, SB1532, SB1302, SB856, SB650, SB583, SB673, SB213, SB681, SB1172, SB1252, SB378, SB1343, SB608, SB487, SB955, SB957, SB988, SB990, SB1019, SB1021, SB1120, SB251, SB958, SB761, SB541, SB315, SB379, SB1018, SB1737, SB266, SB1415, SB1527, SB125, SB599, SB1330, SB53, SB916, SB896, SB1352, SB973, SB785, SB710, SB472, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB414, SB1062, SB1547, SB961, SB1038, SB513, SB578, SB711, SB746, SB942, SB1404, SB1448, SB1738, SB108, SB8, SB318, SB507, SB533, SB689, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB1198, SB1146, SB763, SB667, SB1059, SB617, SB1567, SB503, SJR37, SB16, SB310, SB311, SB396, SB505, SB1209, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB924, SB1029, SB1185, SB1202, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1697, SB1376, SB1228, SB519, SB878, SB1350, SB462, SB1535, SB827, SB1585, SB207, SB1207, SB1619, SB1396, SB920, SB1484, SB1273, SB1741

Keywords: central bank digital currency, CBDC, Federal Reserve, digital dollar, digital currency, cashless payments, financial privacy, cybersecurity, government surveillance, financial surveillance, money laundering, terrorism financing, illicit finance, banking policy, monetary policy, payments system, commercial banks, Texas Legislature, concurrent resolution, federal reserve digital currency

Bills: SJR57, SCR8, SB8, SB14, SB24, SB108, SB112, SB125, SB213, SB251, SB315, SB318, SB371, SB378, SB379, SB472, SB487, SB502, SB513, SB565, SB621, SB650, SB689, SB707, SB710, SB761, SB763, SB815, SB854, SB875, SB896, SB916, SB925, SB958, SB961, SB965, SB973, SB987, SB990, SB995, SB1006, SB1018, SB1019, SB1024, SB1026, SB1146, SB1194, SB1198, SB1253, SB1330, SB1343, SB1362, SB1379, SB1497, SB1498, SB1527, SB1532, SB1547, SB1596, SJR36, SJR12, SJR57, SCR22, SCR12, SCR8, SB565, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB14, SB1006, SB504, SB925, SB995, SB857, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB815, SB1379, SB1497, SB1499, SB1498, SB241, SB304, SB621, SB1023, SB1024, SB686, SB112, SB371, SB204, SB609, SB670, SB502, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1362, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB987, SB1539, SB447, SB875, SB406, SB985, SB965, SB1119, SB1505, SB24, SB1194, SB1253, SB1215, SB1532, SB1302, SB856, SB650, SB583, SB673, SB213, SB681, SB1172, SB1252, SB378, SB1343, SB608, SB487, SB955, SB957, SB988, SB990, SB1019, SB1021, SB1120, SB251, SB958, SB761, SB541, SB315, SB379, SB1018, SB1737, SB266, SB1415, SB1527, SB125, SB599, SB1330, SB53, SB916, SB896, SB1352, SB973, SB785, SB710, SB472, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB414, SB1062, SB1547, SB961, SB1038, SB513, SB578, SB711, SB746, SB942, SB1404, SB1448, SB1738, SB108, SB8, SB318, SB507, SB533, SB689, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB1198, SB1146, SB763, SB667, SB1059, SB617, SB1567, SB503, SJR37, SB16, SB310, SB311, SB396, SB505, SB1209, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB924, SB1029, SB1185, SB1202, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1697, SB1376, SB1228, SB519, SB878, SB1350, SB462, SB1535, SB827, SB1585, SB207, SB1207, SB1619, SB1396, SB920, SB1484, SB1273, SB1741

Keywords: central bank digital currency, CBDC, Federal Reserve, digital dollar, digital currency, cashless payments, financial privacy, cybersecurity, government surveillance, financial surveillance, money laundering, terrorism financing, illicit finance, banking policy, monetary policy, payments system, commercial banks, Texas Legislature, concurrent resolution, federal reserve digital currency

Bills: HR70, HR71, HCR35, HB31, HB326, HB1013, HB1014, HB1015, HB1016, HR65, HR66, HR67, HR68, HR69, HCR33, HCR34, HB1006, HB1007, HB1008, HB1010, HB1011, SB2, SB13, SB24, SB28, SB40, SB47, SB48, SB70, SB79, SB80, SB109, SB127, SB139, SB154, SB181, SB199, SB200, SB208, SB277, SB317, SB336, SB349, SB357, HR15, HR20, HCR14, HB51, HB58, HB69, HB82, HB93, HB143, HB166, HB199, HB201, HB202, HB218, HB222, HB223, HB224, HB231, HB235, HB246, HB338, HB349, HB352, HB379, HB405, HB429, HB535, HB547, HB577, HB588, HB626, HB636, HB652, HB653, HB669, HB688, HB691, HB721, HB738, HB749, HB806, HB843, HB851, HB857, HB861, HB889, HB904, HB907, HB908, HB929, HB955, HB1009, HB952, HB8, HB9, HB10, HB15, HB16, HB17, HB18, HB19, HB22, HB33, HB34, HB35, HB44, HB46, HB47, HB48, HB61, HB101, HB126, HB135, HB142, HB164, HB185, HB215, HB226, HB232, HB233, HB242, HB284, HB292, HB297, HB301, HB334, HB436, HB468, HB548, HB571, HB582, HB593, HB594, HB609, HB613, HB712, HB722, HB732, HB746, HB827, HB845, HB848, HB921, HB923, HB951, HB953, HB999, HB53, HB57, HB64, HB102, HB106, HB111, HB137, HB152, HB155, HB177, HB238, HB256, HB258, HB337, HB359, HB363, HB386, HB434, HB546, HB557, HB584, HB661, HB697, HB726, HB727, HB747, HB756, HB758, HB759, HB765, HB767, HB825, HB858, HB930, HB941, HB957, HB964, HB868, HB119, HB140, HB739, HB842, HB875, HB919, HB52, HB228, HB289, HB735, HB796, HB901, HB193, HB400, HB570, HB733

Keywords: Northside High School, basketball, state championship, sportsmanship, athletic recognition, commendation, criminal justice, community contributions, Bridget A. Dinvaut, law enforcement, tax delinquency, property sale, rehabilitation, Louisiana State Law Institute, legislation, retirement, police benefits, disability, municipality, Social Security

Transcript Highlights:

• I know we got a lot of cleanup done here, and I really appreciate that.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• including change management, and then some resources for the regional center to help us with data cleanup

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview of the governor’s IHSS budget proposals and then took public testimony from the administration, LAO, county representatives, labor, consumer advocates, and an aging/disability advocacy group. The administration described IHSS as a large Medi-Cal long-term services program serving more than 900,000 recipients and proposed three changes: shifting some growth costs tied to authorized hours per case to counties, eliminating the statewide backup provider system, and aligning IHSS terminations with Medi-Cal terminations. The administration also discussed the earlier CFCO reassessment penalty change for counties and said overdue reassessments had dropped significantly. LAO said the governor’s overall IHSS cost estimates appeared reasonable, but raised concerns about the hours-per-case cost shift, including unclear root causes for growth, limited county control over statewide averages, and uncertainty about the eventual savings. County Welfare Directors Association, SEIU, and consumer/advocacy witnesses opposed the hours cost shift, arguing counties use state tools, the proposal would pressure counties to cut services, and it could harm older adults and people with disabilities by increasing institutionalization and shifting costs elsewhere. The chair and members repeatedly questioned the rationale for the proposal, the lack of a defined baseline, and whether the current assessment tools or MOE structure should instead be revisited. On the backup provider system, the administration said the program is underused and costly to administer relative to service spending, while LAO suggested the Legislature consider whether administrative costs could be reduced instead of eliminating it. County, labor, and consumer witnesses opposed the cut, saying the system is a critical emergency safety net even if utilization is low, especially for rural areas and people with complex needs. Members also asked about data quality, county backup systems, and whether consumers know the program exists. On the Medi-Cal/IHSS alignment proposal, the administration said automation would stop General Fund-only spending when recipients lose Medi-Cal and restore IHSS automatically when Medi-Cal is regained; LAO and others noted the proposal had been rejected before and urged better notices and safeguards. Witnesses warned that automatic termination could create gaps in care and unpaid work for providers, while the department said counties already manually terminate in some cases and that automation is ready if approved. No votes were taken in the excerpt, and the chair indicated the committee would continue with public comment and later items before a hard adjournment time.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this is, I think, just an important cleanup bill, but it's more than that.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee heard several bills, with extensive testimony on AB 1557, AB 1770, AB 2075, AB 1864, and AB 1709. AB 1557 would clarify e-bike power limits and set lower speed restrictions for Class 1 and 2 e-bikes; the author and police chiefs framed it as a youth safety measure in response to severe injuries and deaths, while bicycle industry representatives warned it could conflict with federal standards and disrupt California businesses. AB 1770 would place large health care service plans’ binding arbitration under Attorney General oversight and require compliance with the California Arbitration Act; supporters described patient harm and biased arbitration, while Kaiser Permanente and the Civil Justice Association said they were still reviewing amendments and had concerns. AB 2075 would require fire suppression equipment to be kept on or near tractors and other work sites to prevent wildfire spread, and AB 1864 would require screening of gene synthesis orders to prevent misuse for bioterrorism; both were presented as common-sense safety measures, with AB 1864 drawing support from biosecurity experts and some industry groups raising amendment concerns. The most extensive discussion was on AB 1709, which would prohibit social media accounts for users under 16 on platforms with harmful addictive features and create an e-safety commission. The author and supporters argued that social media companies intentionally design addictive products that harm children’s mental health, citing internal company documents, research, and recent court rulings; teen, medical, and advocacy witnesses described cyberbullying, addiction, and other harms. Opponents, including EFF and other civil liberties and industry groups, argued the bill is overbroad, violates the First Amendment, increases data collection, and could cut off access to community and information for youth, especially LGBTQ+ youth and other vulnerable groups. Committee members raised questions about out-of-state users, parental use, dark web harms, and how to preserve community resources for teens; the author said the bill targets platform design rather than speech and emphasized continued work with stakeholders. No final votes were taken during the portion of the meeting provided. The chair repeatedly noted that motions would be taken later when quorum and agenda timing allowed, and several authors asked for aye votes or said they would continue working with opponents on amendments and clarifications.

Transcript Highlights:

• Pretty simple cleanup there.

Bills: HF3794, HF4472, HF4410, HF4347, HF4412, HF4398, HF4397, HF4201, HF4199, HF4203, HF3706, HF4071, HF4120, HF4175, HF4188

Keywords: surveillance, price discrimination, wage discrimination, automated decision systems, consumer protections, data privacy, biometrics, school district health insurance, charter school health benefits, employee benefits, public sector health insurance, health insurance survey, Legislative Budget Office, LBO report, premium costs, retiree coverage, broker commissions, third-party administrator, health plan transparency, health reimbursement arrangement

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Kupec said the amendment is just a super technical cleanup of some spelling and grammar things

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• According to the MPCA in their 2023 groundbreaking study, they show the unaffordable cost of PFAS cleanup

Bills: HF4253, HF4257, HF3236, HF4264, HF4149, HF4019

Keywords: boat storage structures, public waters, natural resources, rule amendments, watercraft canopy, PFAS, environmental regulation, manufacturers, public health, product safety, groundwater, water appropriation, water-use permit, water permit, aquifer test, aquifer, well construction, groundwater permit, Department of Natural Resources, DNR

Transcript Highlights:

• Again, it's just a common-sense cleanup bill.

Bills: SB1052, SB1115, SB1118, SB1120, SB1121, SB1124, SB1171, SB1172, SB1174, SB1175, SB1214, SB1233, SB1235, SB1316, SB1345, SB1372, SB1399, SB1458, SB1494, SB1496, SB1564, SB1602, SB1621, SB1628, SB1630, SB1631, SB1668, SB1672, SB1814, SB1821

Keywords: assisted living, health care, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, physician orders, informed consent, AHCCCS, remote work, state agency, employment, public health, housing, zoning, middle housing, urban development, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, historic preservation, radiation protection

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 1121, which would prohibit hospitals from requiring lead aprons for cardiac catheterization staff when a radiation protection system is in place, while still allowing hospitals to require aprons outside the designated safety zone or when exposure levels warrant additional protection. An amendment added flexibility for radiation safety officers to require lead or other PPE if exposures approach occupational limits and removed expedited rulemaking language. Supporters, including the sponsor and interventional cardiologists, argued the devices reduce radiation and orthopedic injuries and improve recruitment and retention; hospital groups shifted to neutral after the amendment. The committee adopted the amendment and passed SB 1121 on a 9-2 vote. The committee then considered Senate Bill 1120, which would require hospitals performing cardiac catheterization procedures to equip at least 50% of those rooms with radiation protection systems by 2027. Supporters said the systems protect clinicians from radiation and long-term injury, while opponents, including hospital and radiology groups, argued the bill was overly prescriptive, could create a captive market, and might not fit all rooms or procedures. After adopting a children’s hospital exemption amendment, the committee passed SB 1120 on a 6-6 vote, with the chair breaking the tie in favor of the bill. Senate Bill 1118, an appropriation measure tied to the radiation protection system proposal, was also advanced after brief discussion, passing 6-5. The committee then took up Senate Bill 1214, which would create guardrails for non-FDA-approved stem cell and regenerative therapies, including provider standards, informed consent, advertising limits, reporting requirements, and a private right of action for violations. Supporters described it as a patient-protection and access bill, while testimony emphasized concerns about unregulated “bad actors” and patients traveling out of state for treatment. The committee adopted an amendment removing a reference to the National Law and passed SB 1214 on a 9-3 vote. The transcript then began discussion of SB 1630, which would create a Medicaid-funded home and community-based service benefit for adults with serious mental illness, with AHCCCS taking a neutral position and estimating a significant fiscal impact.

Transcript Highlights:

• do not want to open the door to shoreline hardening, but they also want to help people address the cleanup

Bills: SB3253, SB2401, SB3169, SB17, SB3014, SB3032, SB1432, SB2002, SB2972, SB3247

Keywords: conservation, endangered species, wildlife preservation, native birds, biodiversity, sanctuary, nonprofit, DLNR, agricultural district, land use, chapter 195D, chapter 205, chapter 42F, state funding, public purpose, habitat restoration, predator-free sanctuary, ecosystem restoration, Zealandia, wildlife refuge

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land heard testimony on SB 5253 SD2 relating to conservation and SB 2401 relating to regional shoreline mitigation district, with the chair emphasizing short testimony limits and the need to finish before session. On SB 5253, DLNR said it stood on its written testimony and answered questions about the bill’s proposed nonprofit endangered species sanctuary. Members asked whether existing entities or agreements, such as land trusts, private landowners, and DLNR safe harbor agreements, could accomplish similar conservation goals without creating a new entity. DLNR said similar work already exists, but it was not aware of a comparable sanctuary model in the state. A member also questioned language suggesting for-profit businesses in the sanctuary, and DLNR said the intent appeared to be sales of outreach or similar materials, though it agreed that such activities could be handled by a nonprofit. The bulk of the hearing focused on SB 2401, which would create a regional shoreline adaptation/mitigation framework. The Department of the Attorney General said it had concerns about inconsistent use of the terms “mitigation” and “adaptation,” warning of possible title-subject issues. DLNR said it was neutral on the terminology and more concerned with the substance, and noted that the bill would not waive permits; any plan would still require environmental review and applicable state and county permits. DLNR also supported OHA’s recommendation to consider impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during regional planning, and said the bill’s language on temporary shoreline protection measures could help address the gap between emergency permits and longer-term planning while avoiding a hardening-only approach. The Office of Planning supported the regional planning concept but noted it is not a regulatory agency and would need to work with DLNR and the Land Board. OHA supported the bill’s planning-based approach but recommended amendments to require assessment of impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during plan development and to clarify that environmental review would still apply at the project level. Testifiers from the Ka‘anapali Steering Committee strongly supported the bill, saying it would provide a regional framework for ongoing erosion problems while preserving full regulatory authority and normal permitting, and they proposed amendments to standardize terminology, create a limited pathway for temporary shoreline protection, and address ownership and maintenance responsibilities. Members discussed the meaning of “mitigation” versus “adaptation,” the scope of shoreline hardening, and whether the bill would help the legislature take a broader, more holistic view of shoreline decisions. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The first of those, the A21, had a couple of technical clarifying cleanup items and then established

Bills: HF3169, HF3749, HF2605, HF3541, HF4102, HF3513, HF268

Keywords: suicide prevention, transportation, mental health, bridge safety, data collection, state law, bridge inspection, active transportation, truck parking, public safety, vehicle registration, fee structure, full-service providers, Capitol security, emergency management, state buildings, law enforcement, Minnesota State Patrol, State Patrol compensation, trooper salary

Transcript Highlights:

• 06.960> Chairman<00:02:07.320> and<00:02:07.400> committee Senate Bill 46 is a cleanup

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thus, shooting range owners are knowingly and willingly creating future Superfund cleanup sites at enormous

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• He also said he is working with this team on a technical cleanup bill to plug the issues that these guys

Bills: HF3794, HF3408

Keywords: surveillance, price discrimination, wage discrimination, automated decision systems, consumer protections, data privacy, biometrics, consumer protection, price setting, biometric data, retail, privacy, 1183, house

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from March 3, 2026, and then received a presentation from the Minnesota Office of the Attorney General on the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act. Assistant Attorney General Caitlin Miko and Deputy Attorney General Jessica Whitney reviewed the law’s scope, consumer rights, business obligations, and enforcement history. They said the law took effect July 31, 2025, gives Minnesotans rights to access, delete, and opt out of sale, profiling, and targeted advertising, and is enforced by the Attorney General with penalties up to $7,500 per violation. They reported more than 200 complaints in the first six months, many warning letters, and a shift from education to active enforcement now that the initial warning-letter period has expired. Committee members asked about how the universal opt-out works, what happens when companies deny deletion or editing requests, how the office determines willful noncompliance, and whether the law could burden small businesses. The AG’s office said the opt-out can be set through privacy-protective browsers or extensions, companies must respond to consumer requests within 45 days, small businesses are exempt as defined by the SBA, and investigations look for patterns and evidence of willful conduct rather than minor technical violations. The office also said it needs additional funding to fully staff enforcement efforts and noted that it has already issued subpoenas and civil investigative demands. The committee then took up House File 3408, the Stop Grocery Surveillance Price Gouging Act. The author explained that the bill would prohibit retail grocers, physical and online, from setting individualized prices based on consumer information, would limit certain uses of facial recognition and electronic shelf labels, and would preserve narrow exceptions for discounts and loyalty programs. Public testimony followed from the Minnesota Farmers Union in support, arguing that grocery consolidation and surveillance pricing could worsen already high food costs and harm fair competition. The Minnesota Grocers Association opposed the premise that grocery stores use surveillance pricing, said shelf prices are generally uniform and set from a single storewide database, and argued electronic shelf labels are efficient and not nefarious. A technology company representative similarly said ESLs do not use personal data or facial recognition, prices are uniform, and a 2025 study found no meaningful price increases after ESL adoption. The bill was laid over for possible further discussion after the testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Usually it's kind of a mock cleanup type after the fires are kind of settled down.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is the annual technical cleanup bill.

Bills: SB2041

Keywords: land court, real property, legal documents, bureau of conveyances, judicial confirmation, property registration, working group, Hawaii Revised Statutes, reform, 912, senate, all

Summary: The committees heard SB 2041, which would repeal the Land Court, transfer its functions to the Bureau of Conveyances, and create a working group to recommend implementation. DLNR and Judiciary stood on their written testimony, while Realtors supported the bill and one testifier raised concerns about the loss of judicial authority, title disputes, adverse possession, and possible effects on Kuleana lands. Members questioned whether property could be deregistered and what the legal consequences would be, and the Bureau of Conveyances said deregistration is already available but burdensome. The committees ultimately recommended passage with amendments, and the measure was adopted by both committees. The Judiciary Committee then heard SB 2247, which restricts certain governor-appointed, Senate-confirmed executive branch employees from participating in campaign fundraising. The State Ethics Commission and Campaign Spending Commission supported the bill as a way to curb pay-to-play concerns and the appearance of undue influence, and several advocacy and civic groups also testified in support, with one person opposing. The committee agreed to amend the bill so the restrictions apply only after confirmation and continue until the person leaves the covered position. The committee voted to pass SB 2247 with amendments. Finally, the Judiciary Committee heard SB 2143, which would make the Attorney General the interim Chief Election Officer if that office becomes vacant until the Elections Commission appoints a replacement. Supporters argued the bill would provide continuity, prevent delays in certifying election results, and protect election integrity; opponents argued it would politicize the office, create a conflict of interest, and was unnecessary because current law already provides a process for filling vacancies. Testimony was extensive and sharply divided, with many speakers on both sides. The transcript provided does not include a final vote or action on SB 2143.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's really just a little bit of cleanup language up there at the top of page five on line five.

Bills: SF0028, SF0030, SF0031, SF0032

Keywords: voting, elections, electronic voting systems, transparency, public testing, voter registration, qualified elector, residency requirements, voting rights, mortgage modification, priority, electronic signatures, real property, financial covenants, 911 services, emergency response, grant funding, next generation technology, government accountability, public safety