Transcript Highlights:

• Invited testimony is now open. There's no one registered for invited testimony.
• So invited testimony is now closed. Public testimony is now open.
• Hearing none, public testimony is closed.

Bills: HB2217

Keywords: law enforcement, bullet-resistant, grant program, safety equipment, peace officers

Summary: The Senate Committee on Criminal Justice met and considered two House bills. HB 2217 would create a grant program to help local law enforcement agencies equip patrol vehicles with bullet-resistant components such as windshields, side doors, and windows. Senator Hagenbuch explained that the measure is intended to improve officer safety in light of shootings through patrol car glass, and no invited or public testimony was offered. The committee voted 6-0 to report HB 2217 favorably to the full Senate and also recommended it for the open uncontested calendar. The committee then took up HB 2594, with Senator Creighton explaining that it updates venue rules for cybercrime and related theft cases involving intangible property such as cryptocurrency, online fraud, and intellectual property theft. The bill would allow prosecution in the county where the victim resides, where the defendant is apprehended, or where the defendant is extradited to, giving prosecutors more flexibility when crimes cross county lines. No questions or testimony were offered. The committee voted 6-0 to report HB 2594 favorably to the full Senate. It was also recommended for the local and uncontested calendar. After completing its business, the committee recessed subject to the call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then lastly, another addition in this emergency response section, noting testimony, again, that the
• I want to just thank Commissioner Davis, who is not here today, but who sent along this testimony from
• Testimony was received that there is miscommunication, and miscommunication kind of broadly, that differs
• We've received testimony asking or highlighting the need to expand that to sort of bolster the public
• So one addition at the bottom of page 20 for first responders, we did receive some testimony that was

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on the Public Health Effects of Xylazine held its fifth and final public meeting to review and approve the final draft of its report before submission to the House and Senate clerks. Chair Mindy Domb opened the meeting, noted Senator John Keenan’s absence due to National Guard deployment, approved the prior meeting minutes, and explained the process for incorporating final edits and late votes into appendices. Commissioners then voted to allow staff to make agreed-upon language changes after the meeting, and later voted on the final report itself. Staff walked commissioners through the report’s redlines and substantive updates. Changes included clarifying that xylazine is an active adulterant rather than simply a bulking agent, replacing “non-clinician” with “non-clinical staff,” removing or revising references to “hotspots” in favor of more accurate language about local trends, and refining language on wound care to refer to medical consequences and financial costs. The report also added or strengthened discussion of harm reduction measures such as drug checking, mobile health services, overdose prevention centers, oxygenation and airway support during overdose response, and the importance of naloxone remaining available while recognizing its limits for xylazine exposure. Commissioners also discussed data collection, legal protections for drug checking, and the role of the Attorney General in guidance and coordination on emerging drug threats. The commission then took a final vote, with the members present voting to approve the report. A letter from Senator Velis, who was also absent due to active duty orders, was read into the record expressing support for the report and its recommendations. In closing comments, commissioners and staff thanked one another for the collaborative work and described the report as a useful public health resource. Chair Domb adjourned the meeting at 11:11 a.m., noting that the final report would be submitted and posted online for public access.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you wish to give testimony, please fill out a witness card completely, sign it, and hand it over to
• Your signature is an affirmation that the testimony you give is true.
• We had a lot of public testimony, so we didn't vote on any bills and didn't take up any amendments.
• We will hear three-minute testimony on the amendments for this bill.
• Thank you for that testimony.

Summary: The Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee met on May 12, 2026, and focused primarily on Senate Bill 407, a congressional redistricting proposal, with Senate Bill 121 also scheduled for later. The chair explained the committee would first take up SB 407, consider amendments, then hear public testimony, and would not take up SB 116 or SB 130. Two amendment sets were adopted on SB 407: one technical set adjusting dates to align with the upcoming election cycle, and another updating the map in the bill. Committee members and the bill sponsor described the proposal as a 4-2 congressional map intended to comply with the Supreme Court’s CalA ruling, preserve traditional redistricting criteria, and avoid using race as the basis for district lines. Supporters of SB 407 argued the map was compact, contiguous, kept parishes and cities together, and created two opportunity districts without racial predominance. Several senators said the map better reflected Louisiana’s political and demographic realities and could withstand legal challenge under the Equal Protection Clause and First Amendment. Testimony in support also emphasized fairness, representation, and the idea that the state should not move to a 5-1 map. Some speakers, including former legislators and community advocates, said the state should maintain or preserve two districts where Black voters and Democratic voters could elect candidates of choice. Opponents of the broader redistricting effort criticized the process as rushed and confusing, especially because early voting had already begun and the Secretary of State was not present to answer questions. Some speakers said the legislature had not been properly involved in the election suspension process and raised concerns about whether votes already cast would count if maps changed. Others argued the proposed changes were an attempt to dilute political power and disenfranchise voters, particularly Black, poor, and queer communities. The committee heard extensive public testimony on both sides, but no final vote on the bill was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Please state your name and we'll hear your testimony on House Bill 126. >> Burlington, Wyoming.
• but um, it seemed from the testimony I but um, it seemed from the testimony I was<00:02:03.520> hearing
• Please state your name and we'll hear your testimony. >> Uh, thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
• Thank you. >> Thank you for your testimony, committee. Any questions? >> Okay, seeing none.
• All right, that will conclude online testimony. I will close public testimony.

Bills: HB0117, HB0126

Keywords: informed consent, abortion, civil liability, coercion, healthcare rights, fetal heartbeat, termination of pregnancy, medical emergency, Wyoming legislation, rights of minors, healthcare regulations, parental consent, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any public testimony on the bill? And we do.
• Any public testimony on the amendment? None on the amendment.
• Any public testimony? All right, Bonnie Bishop waives in support.
• Any further public testimony? Seeing none, members wishing to debate?
• Any public testimony on the bill?

Transcript Highlights:

• Do we have any public testimony on this bill? We have one. Do we know which one of you it is?
• We also got a lot of public testimony. We'll go to the questions. Representative Anton.
• One more, and we're going to go into public testimony. Thanks for your patience.
• All right, we're going to go into public testimony. Della Abbott waves in opposition. Dr.
• And that's all the public testimony that we had. We had no amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• SEEING NO AMENDMENTS WE WILL MOVE INTO PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
• >>Chair Anderson: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.
• >>Chair Anderson: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY, APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE AND THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING
• SEEING NO MORE PUBLIC TESTIMONY WE ARE NOW IN DEBATE, DO WE HAVE ANY DEBATES, REPRESENTATIVE BARNABY
• MANY THINGS WERE SAID DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND DEBATE AND I HAVE TO RESIST AND WANT TO ADDRESS THEM

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your testimony. Any questions for this? Yes. Representative Preciate. Proceed.
• Yeah, and thanks for the testimony.
• Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony, and we appreciate you being here.
• Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony, and we appreciate you being here. Thank you.
• Thank you very much for your testimony. Seeing none. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your time and listening to my testimony.
• But if you did listen to the testimony, the murderer in Marjory Stoneman Douglas, listened to the testimony
• Seeing none, is there any public testimony on the bill? All right.
• Any public testimony on the amendment?
• Is there any public testimony? All right.

Summary: The committee first took up HB 133, which would lower the minimum age to purchase a long gun from 21 to 18. The sponsor and supporters argued the bill restores the rights of adults 18 and older, emphasizing constitutional rights, military service, voting, jury duty, and parental responsibility. Opponents, including gun violence prevention advocates and several members, cited Parkland and the recent FSU shooting, argued that people under 21 are still developing and more impulsive, and said the current law helps protect public safety. After extensive debate and public testimony on both sides, the committee voted 11-5 to report HB 133 favorably. The committee then considered PCS for HB 35, which adds driving without a valid license to the offenses that can lead to habitual traffic offender designation and is named Isaiah’s Law in memory of a child killed by an unlicensed driver. Supporters said it addresses repeat dangerous conduct and should help prevent similar tragedies. One member questioned whether it was a knee-jerk response, while others said it was a reasonable accountability measure. The PCS passed unanimously, 16-0, and was reported favorably. Finally, the committee heard HB 245, which updates Florida law to use more accurate terminology for child sexual abuse material rather than “child pornography,” and includes related technical corrections. The sponsor said the change better reflects the seriousness of the crime and asked whether the bill also covered AI-generated material; the sponsor said the statute already addresses such references. After a technical amendment was adopted, the bill passed unanimously, 16-0, and was reported favorably. The chair also reminded members to maintain respect toward public witnesses and each other before adjourning the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Not hearing any, we'll start the public testimony and reserve the right to close.
• Spill, for being here and thank you for your testimony. Thank you, chair.
• You need expert testimony and it's a medical case.
• Powell, and thank you for your testimony.
• Uh, let's see, we've got one witness affirmation on and we'll start the public testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, we'll start testimony. Let's see. Oh, Representative Swanson has a question. Thank you.
• I appreciate that Members any other Okay, we'll move on to testimony.
• You may proceed with your testimony. And you have three minutes. Thank you. Thank you.
• We will proceed with testimony. The chair calls Dennis Forrest and Rhonda Richardson.
• You may proceed with your testimony. Thank you all.

Bills: HB451, HB645, HB 1041, HB 1151, HB 1155, HB1536, HCR12, HCR12

Keywords: commercial sexual exploitation, child sex trafficking, human trafficking, child welfare, foster care, DFPS, Department of Family and Protective Services, juvenile probation, risk assessment, needs assessment, trauma screening, child abuse prevention, exploitation screening, validated screening tool, evidence-informed tool, conservatorship, juvenile justice, at-risk youth, trafficking prevention, Child Sex Trafficking Prevention Unit

Transcript Highlights:

• questions, um, but I'd like to go right to the amendments that have been drafted, um, in the committee testimony
• 00:02:40.879> in<00:02:41.120> the<00:02:41.840> committee<00:02:42.319> testimony
• <00:02:43.000> we<00:02:43.120> heard in in the committee testimony we heard in in
• the committee testimony we heard that<00:02:45.000> um<00:02:46.000> there<00:02:46.200
• uh and the fact that we don't testimony uh and the fact that we don't necessarily<00:11:41.000> know

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee discussed HB 694, focusing on how to set fair market rates for lease renewals involving state agencies and political subdivisions. Members and the New Hampshire Association of Counties worked through draft language defining fair market value, including how appraisals, depreciation, and building deficiencies should be considered. Testimony emphasized that market value and appraised value can differ significantly, and that the bill should allow flexibility rather than require a rigid formula. The group also debated what expenses should be included in lease terms. After discussion of examples such as utilities, custodial services, insurance, maintenance, and newer needs like communications or internet service, members agreed not to create an overly specific list. They settled on language stating that additional expenses, including but not limited to utilities and custodial services, would be negotiated separately. The final amendment was revised to apply to lease renewals for land, buildings, or space between a political subdivision and the State of New Hampshire, with renewals at fair market rate unless otherwise agreed by the lessor. The subcommittee agreed to have the amendment drafted at OLS and then closed the public subcommittee meeting on HB 694.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that completes my testimony and I'm happy to answer any questions.
• Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. The chair calls Miriam. So let's...
• Chairman: OK, thank you for your testimony. Witness: Thank you. Chairman: OK, thank you.
• Thank you for your testimony. OK, the chair calls Alina Karnan. Alina Karnan: All right.
• Thank you for your testimony. Chair: Members, that concludes today's agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• That completes my testimony, and I am happy to answer any questions.
• And thank you for your testimony. Yes, sir. Thank you. The chair calls Bill Longley. Mr.
• Okay, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Thank you for being here today.
• Thank you for your testimony. The chair calls Alina Karnan.
• Okay, thank you for your testimony. Members, that concludes today's agenda.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Excuse me, my reservations is based upon the testimony of the DCCA insurance commissioner, which notes
• ><00:23:28.159> based<00:23:28.679> upon<00:23:28.840> the<00:23:28.960> testimony
• reservations is based upon the testimony reservations is based upon the testimony of<00:23:29.600
• <00:24:36.600> forward<00:24:36.880> and<00:24:37.039> why the um their testimony
• forward and why the um their testimony forward and why we<00:24:37.240> need<00:24:37.399>

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And do we Thank you for your testimony.
• . testimony. testimony.
• testimony she was discussing the fact testimony she was discussing the fact that<01:40:51.800> I
• Biler, thank you for your testimony. Mr. Biler, thank you for your testimony.
• ,<02:45:30.720> the<02:45:30.840> purpose testimony, the purpose testimony, the purpose

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ,<01:31:34.920> um unwritten testimony, um unwritten testimony, um and<01:31:36.720> be
• And go ahead with your testimony. Go. And go ahead with your testimony.
• heard already some of the testimony heard already some of the testimony about<02:09:42.280> some
• Thank you for the testimony and for your expertise.
• even even with the the testimony even even with the the testimony that<02:21:29.200> this

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um we've notified all of on testimony.
• Miss Holden, did you have prepared testimony? Just here for questions.
• Did you have testimony?
• Did you have testimony? us as well. Did you have testimony?
• testimony? Uh how it affects the others? testimony? Uh how it affects the others?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your testimony.
• Um, and there have been a lot of acronyms thrown around today between all the testimonies.
• Uh, so I between all the testimonies.
• We have so many, you know, three-minute testimony is not enough to understand what's going on.
• Would you like to proceed with your testimony? I'm good. Would anything you need to add?

Keywords: 00:00 - Call to Order/Roll Call 01:27 - Discussion of 26RS HB 470 29:05 - Roll Call Vote on 26RS HB 470 32:06 - Discussion of 26RS HJR 25 34:49 - Roll Call Vote on 26RS HJR 25 37:08 - Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Health Services met with a quorum and took up House Bill 470, which was presented as a cleanup and delay measure related to peer support specialists and Medicaid reimbursement. The bill would extend the deadline for registered alcohol and drug peer support specialists to be Medicaid reimbursable, address issues created by delayed regulations under House Bill 505, remove a limit on direct client care hours, and create a work group to examine oversight and possible future board structure for peer professionals. The committee adopted a committee substitute before hearing testimony. Bill sponsor Rep. Kim Moser and supporting witnesses said the change was needed because implementation problems and regulatory backlogs had created a peer support workforce shortage and confusion across multiple peer categories, including substance use, mental health, re-entry, and gambling peers. Elena Swezy argued the bill would stabilize the workforce, improve oversight, and allow time to develop a more effective credentialing framework. Frank Miller Jr. testified in opposition, arguing the bill lacked a proper enabling statute for Medicaid-related changes and would not be enforceable as written. Sarah Vaughn also raised concerns about the bill’s impact on mental health peer specialists, multispecialty behavioral health groups, and whether separate regulations would be needed for mental health and substance use services. Committee members questioned the bill’s structure, fiscal impact, training costs, and whether the work group would be appointed or informal. Sponsors responded that the bill does not require providers to hire anyone, only sets registration requirements if they do hire substance-use peer specialists, and said the work group was intended to help develop a more unified oversight model. Several members expressed concern about the complexity of the issue and the short testimony time, while others supported the bill as a way to improve oversight and reduce fraud risk. The committee approved House Bill 470 as amended by the committee substitute, and then adopted a title amendment; the bill passed with favorable expression.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you so much for your testimony. You can return back.
• Thank you so much for your testimony. Now we'll move to it. Thank you so much for your testimony.
• I just want to thank everybody here for their testimony.
• And so I do want to mention we heard the testimony from those here.
• So this body has heard the testimony.

Summary: The joint hearing of the Select Committee on Native American Affairs and the Joint Legislative Audit Committee focused on the University of California’s compliance with NAGPRA and CalNAGPRA and the return of Native American human remains and cultural items. Senators and Assembly Members opened by emphasizing the sacredness of repatriation, the ongoing trauma caused by delayed returns, and the need for stronger systemwide accountability. The State Auditor presented the third audit of UC’s repatriation efforts, concluding that UC still lacks the urgency, oversight, and clear timelines needed to promptly return remains and belongings. The audit found thousands of remains and hundreds of thousands of cultural items still in UC custody, new undisclosed collections at several campuses, weak budgeting and underspending, and repatriation plans that often lacked concrete deadlines. The auditor recommended stronger UCOP oversight, performance metrics, proactive searches for undiscovered items, and possible legislative action to tie funding to measurable progress. UC officials responded that the system is committed to full compliance and has accelerated its work since adopting a new policy in 2022. UC Provost Catherine Newman said the system repatriated more than 2,800 ancestors and nearly 80,000 funerary belongings in the past year, and that UC now says 80.3% of Native American remains are either repatriated or available for repatriation. UC announced a new systemwide plan to complete repatriation of human remains by the end of 2028, to finish high-risk campus reviews by June 2026, to recall all loans by January 2026, and to require quarterly reporting to UCOP. UC also said it will spend an additional $8.8 million over three years, expand staffing, improve databases, support tribal consultation costs, and identify potential reburial sites on UC land. Berkeley and San Diego described increased staffing, consultations, and repatriation activity, while Santa Barbara said it had corrected earlier omissions, notified tribes about previously unreported ancestors, and was working toward completing repatriations and updated inventories. Committee members pressed UC on why progress has been so slow, why the audit’s timelines differed from UC’s public reporting, and whether the 2028 goal applies only to human remains rather than all cultural items. UC said the 2028 target is for human remains, while cultural items will take longer, and acknowledged that more work remains. Members also asked about the technical expertise needed for repatriation, the role of tribal experts, and whether repatriation should be embedded more permanently in UC governance or statute. Tribal leaders and representatives then testified that remains and belongings were taken without consent and must be returned with tribal consent and leadership. They criticized the repeated delays, stressed that tribes are the experts on their ancestors and cultural heritage, and urged UC to treat repatriation as a top priority and to return all associated items, not just human remains, so ancestors can truly rest.