Transcript Highlights:

• <00:16:54.079> I really basic sort of simple provisions I really basic sort of simple provisions
• Uh this is just another provision too.
• you know, we we talked these provisions you know, we we talked these provisions over.<00:35:02.480
• <00:37:28.079> that agriculture has and the provisions that agriculture has and the provisions
• governor has proposed in his provision. governor has proposed in his provision.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:04:46.640> at The Senate funds these provisions at The Senate funds these provisions at
• Chair, is the court provisions. provisions at $1,276,000 provisions at $1,276,000 in<00:06:42.360>
• provision provision >> [clears throat] >> [clears throat] >> [clears throat] >&
• a House-only provision a House-only provision that<00:19:07.280> makes<00:19:07.480> a
• Both the Senate and the House provisions Both the Senate and the House provisions require<00:21:

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The Safety and Security Conference Committee met on May 13, 2026, with a quorum present and no immediate vote taken. Chairs explained the committee was working ahead of a possible target so it could act quickly later if needed, then proceeded with member introductions and a reminder about committee decorum. Staff noted a microphone delay and said the meeting would include a side-by-side walk-through of the House and Senate policy language and a review of the fiscal spreadsheet. Fiscal staff summarized major differences in court, public safety, and legislative security funding. The House and Senate proposals differed on safety and security funding for the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and District Courts, as well as on courthouse grants, capital security enhancements, and a new legislative/protective services unit. Staff also reviewed Senate-only and House-only items, including a Senate proposal to require removal of insignia from public safety vehicles sold to the public, and House provisions for a security services task force and member security costs. Total general fund impacts were reviewed, with the House total corrected to include an open appropriation that had been omitted from the spreadsheet totals. Nonpartisan staff then walked through the policy differences. The Senate language focused on a Protective Services Unit and security for principal state officials, while the House language focused on a Legislative Services Unit and security for legislators. Both bills included provisions on Capitol Complex Security, reporting requirements, and reimbursement arrangements with local law enforcement, but differed on details such as whether elected officials must provide contact information to DPS and how requests for personal protective services are handled. The House-only amendment A8 was presented for discussion; it would revise emergency contact provisions, replace the House’s personal protective services request language with a more detailed threat assessment and mitigation framework, direct implementation of the new unit, and make related reimbursement and technical changes. Judge Richard Kyle, president of the Minnesota District Judges Association, testified in support of stronger judicial and court safety measures. He described rising threats against judges, citing survey results showing high rates of judges limiting personal information, receiving inappropriate communications, changing personal behavior, and experiencing threats to themselves and family members. He said the association supports legislative authorization and funding for home security and personal data protections for judicial officers, and emphasized that safety concerns for judges and court staff have become more serious in recent years.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Howard, you're recognized to explain the provisions of HCR1027.
• Please recognize Senator Howard to explain the provisions of HCR1027.
• Senator Coleman, you're recognized to explain the House provisions or to explain the provisions of House
• President, would you please Recognize me for the provisions to present the provisions of House Bill 3148
• Would you Senator Pugh to present the provisions of House Bill 4274.

Bills: SR44, HCR1027, SJR50, SJR52, SJR53, HB1185, HB1937, HB2035, HB2137, HB2166, HB3148, HB3323, HB3466, HB3498, HB3661, HB3678, HB3710, HB3977, HB3986, HB4104, HB4108, HB4142, HB4191, HB4274, HB4275, HB4322, HB4336, HB4484, HB3880, HB1687, HB3673, HB1170, HB2959, HB3718, HB3021, HB3443, HB3501, HB4143, HB4326, HB2992, HB3660, SB171, SB1325, SB1980, SB2045, HB4422, HB4423

Keywords: Medicaid, federal funding, state law, healthcare, low-income adults, Oklahoma Constitution, Oklahoma Health Care Authority, OHCA, health care rules, administrative rules, major rule, Title 75, Title 317, Oklahoma Administrative Code, OAC 317:30, health policy, state health programs, provider regulations, benefits administration, rule approval

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 85, introduced by the Committee on Growth and Infrastructure, revises provisions relating
• Senate Bill 119, introduced by Senator Neal, revises provisions relating to the Nevada Grow program.
• Senate Bill No. 499, introduced by the Committee on Finance, revises provisions relating to the state
• Senate Bill No. 192, introduced by Senator Neal, revises provisions relating to public health.
• Assembly Bill No. 169, introduced by Assemblymember Yeager, revises provisions.

Keywords: 909, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In short, sunset provisions are not unlawful.
• These provisions do These provisions do not exceed statutory authority, because by their very nature,
• sunset provisions are not an exercise of regulatory power.
• That's why these rules were determined not to need a sunset provision, or not to need the sunset provision
• need an explicit provision. ...as to whether, in the case of sunset provisions, we would need an explicit

Summary: The Joint Administrative Procedures Committee reviewed several agency rules and objections under Chapter 120. First, the committee revisited prior objections to Agency for Health Care Administration rules containing sunset provisions. AHCA’s general counsel said the agency amended 26 of the objected rules but declined to amend five others, arguing sunset provisions are lawful, are not themselves rules, and were consistent with a 2019 gubernatorial directive. Committee members questioned that position, especially for licensing and certificate-of-need rules, and urged the agency to consider legislative changes; no formal action was taken on that item during the discussion. The committee then considered an objection to Department of Management Services Rule 60G-1.001 defining the Governor’s Mansion grounds. Committee staff argued the rule is vague and improperly refers to future land acquisitions without updating the rule since 1998. DMS defended the rule as a general definition tied to publicly recorded property and a master lease, but said it would not object if the Legislature chose to codify the definition in statute. After discussion, the committee voted to file the objection. Members also received informational updates from the Department of Environmental Protection on the Solaris state lands inventory system, and from the Florida Gaming Control Commission on its response to the Tampa Bay Downs unadopted-rule litigation, in which the commission said it has stopped relying on the prior tax interpretation and will not promulgate a rule on that issue. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation said it would remove an unsupported cigar wholesale dealer permit reference, repeal an obsolete excise-tax deduction rule, and amend penalty guidelines and an affirmation in its alcohol, beverage, and tobacco rules. Finally, the Division of Administrative Hearings’ interim director discussed case-processing times, possible changes to ALJ status, and whether the Florida Rules of Evidence should apply in administrative proceedings, emphasizing the need to weigh costs, independence, and impacts on pro se litigants. The chair noted this was likely the committee’s final meeting of the year.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:46.920> that deadlines uh that is also provision that deadlines uh that is also provision
• would include the allow the provision would include the allow the provision that<00:04:48.400>
• Another provision, the last provision we'd like to just add some comment on, is that we still think is
• Another provision, the last provision we'd like to just add some comment on, is that we still think is
• These provisions in here are good provisions that have bipartisan support, and I would encourage members

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 1378, an elections administration bill, and first adopted the DE5 amendment. The author described DE5 as a negotiated package combining provisions from several bills on election administration, including notice of temporary polling locations, residence standards for people under civil commitment orders, polling place closure/change notices, absentee voting provisions, special election filing periods, and timelines for filing statements of economic interest. The committee then adopted two additional amendments, A6 and A8, both presented as technical or corrective changes; A8 restored language on off-reservation temporary polling that had been inadvertently left out. Testimony from county election officials and the Secretary of State’s office was generally supportive of the bill’s election-administration changes. Blue Earth County’s Michael Stalberger said the bill would streamline election-day work, improve absentee ballot deadlines, clarify ballot correction procedures, formalize chain-of-custody plans, and speed out-of-court remedies for ballot errors. He also raised concerns about implementation details, including the timing for first chain-of-custody plans, applying candidate filing changes to townships and school districts as well as cities, the short turnaround for college student housing lists, and whether the statewide system could handle new absentee-ballot data fields. Nicole Freeman of the Secretary of State’s office echoed support for the technical cleanup and several policy changes, including removing the permanent absentee application box from voter registration forms, clarifying ballot-board procedures, chain-of-custody planning, and the out-of-court remedy, while also flagging concerns about the absentee application cutoff, city opt-outs from absentee voting, and staffing requirements for absentee locations. Later in the hearing, members discussed a separate proposed amendment, A4/A3, dealing with prohibitions on inducements to vote or register, including lotteries or other chances to win money or goods. The author explained it was intended to clarify existing law and respond to recent examples of large-money election-related giveaways, but after discussion the chair declined to offer the amendment in committee, saying it would likely not have enough support and could be taken up later on the floor. The hearing ended with the technical amendments adopted and the bill advanced with the committee continuing broader discussions on the remaining issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• Section 7 expands only provision.
• <00:16:05.279> It houseonly provision section six. It houseonly provision section six.
• On pages R19 to R21, there are different provisions. Section 10 is a Senate provision.
• And pages R24 to R25, there are provisions that are the same. Section 15 is the Senate provision.
• Section 15 is the Senate provision. Section 11 is the House provision.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Nash has a couple of provisions in the bill.
• , including these two small provisions, including these two small provisions, but<00:02:06.320>
• > to<00:15:02.480> state Uh the provisions relating to state Uh the provisions relating
• 00:15:06.160> allow provisions that uh would allow provisions that uh would allow government<00
• the governor bringing these provisions the governor bringing these provisions forward<00:15:59.519

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• provisions that are in the bill. provisions that are in the bill.
• including the marketplace provisions. including the marketplace provisions.
• these provisions? these provisions?
• sense provisions that he needed. sense provisions that he needed.
• provisions in the new law. provisions in the new law.

Keywords: 00:00:22 - Call to Order and Roll Call 00:03:00 – Approval of June 25, 2025 Minutes 00:03:22 - Update on Federal Changes to the Medicaid Program 01:03:44 - State Directed Payments, Provider Taxes, and the Rural Health Transformation Fund: How Medicaid Changes Could Impact Kentucky Hospitals 01:29:42 – Public Comments 01:45:25 – Announcements 01:46:19 - Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The Medicaid Oversight and Advisory Board met on July 30, 2025, approved the June 25 minutes, and received a presentation from Katherine Castanza of the National Conference of State Legislatures on Medicaid provisions in H.R. 1. The presentation outlined more than 20 Medicaid-related provisions, emphasizing that the largest federal savings come from work/community engagement requirements, changes to provider taxes, limits on state-directed payments, more frequent eligibility redeterminations for expansion populations, and related eligibility/enrollment changes. She said the fiscal effects are backloaded, with most reductions occurring in the later years of the 10-year window, and noted potential significant impacts on hospital payments and state financing. She also described new funding opportunities, including a $50 billion rural health transformation fund and a new home and community-based services waiver with associated grants. A substantial portion of the discussion focused on Kentucky’s pending community engagement 1115 waiver and how it would interact with the new federal requirements. Board members asked whether the waiver had been approved, what the cabinet’s contingency plan would be if CMS does not approve it, and what the timeline is for compliance. Cabinet representatives said the waiver has not yet been approved by CMS, remains under public comment, and that the state will wait for CMS guidance before moving forward; if needed, the state would amend the waiver or submit a new one. They said the work requirement must be in place by January 1, 2027, with a possible extension to 2028. Castanza also explained that expansion adults with incomes between 100% and 138% of the federal poverty level would face new cost-sharing requirements beginning October 1, 2028, and that eligibility redeterminations would move from annual to every six months starting January 1, 2027. She then walked through provider tax changes, including a moratorium on new provider taxes beginning October 1, 2026, and a phased reduction in the hold-harmless threshold for existing taxes beginning January 1, 2028, with exemptions for nursing facilities and ICF/IID providers. Board members questioned the timing and likely impact on Kentucky, and Castanza responded that the effect would depend on each tax’s current rate and would phase in over time.

Transcript Highlights:

• that we removed was the provision. that we removed was the provision. uh<00:02:44.000> it
• uh 14 25 um all of those um provisions uh 14 25 um all of those um provisions are<00:08:55.839><
• What the provisions? We adopted this amendment. Two provisions.
• What the what provisions? We we are. What the what provisions?
• Two provisions. adopted this amendment. Two provisions.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , provisions, provisions, $82,000 $82,000 $82,000 in<00:05:03.360> fiscal<00:05:03.680> year
• , We have safety and security provisions, We have safety and security provisions, um<00:05:29.200
• security provisions, I can. security provisions, I can. Thank<00:06:22.840> you.
• That's the provision that Senator Latz just explained. Is there a discussion on that provision?
• This includes provisions from Senate This includes provisions from Senate file<00:18:00.880> 3988,

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• c> increase Um, the provisions that increase Um, the provisions that increase revenue,<00:02:27.040
• <00:02:39.800> to, federal conformity uh, provisions to, federal conformity uh, provisions
• <00:04:02.840> that Lines 4 through 8 are provisions that Lines 4 through 8 are provisions
• Lory, I mean, provisions. Mr.
• many of the provisions in the bill. many of the provisions in the bill.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And section 9 imposes a new provisions.
• Second, the AI and electronic monitoring provisions are extremely expansive.
• <00:16:28.560> for these provisions include obligations for these provisions include obligations
• Our provisions around the AI that right?
• > mean,<00:31:58.480> it's<00:31:58.679> one provision where, I mean, it's one provision

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• THE OBJECTIONS WERE BASED ON THE SUNSET PROVISIONS IN THE RULES.
• SUNSET PROVISIONS ARE NOT UNLAWFUL.
• THESE PROVISIONS DO NOT EXCEED STATUTORY BECAUSE BY THEIR VERY NATURE SUNSET PROVISIONS ARE NOT AN EXERCISE
• SUNSET PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE.
• THE RULEMAKING PROCESS HAS NOT BEEN INITIATED FOR THESE PROVISIONS.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill has some key provisions.
• We've got those provisions in there. You'll be asked for questions.
• Would you please recognize me to present the provisions of House Bill 360?
• It's not changing into the federal benefits provision.
• To present the provisions of House Bill 4427.

Bills: HB2268, HB3000, HB3043, HB3066, HB3078, HB3143, HB3144, HB3244, HB3298, HB3320, HB3467, HB3321, HB3329, HB3431, HB3464, HB3499, HB3500, HB3586, HB3590, HB3650, HB3671, HB3695, HB3700, HB3701, HB3764, HB3767, HB3834, HB3931, HB3934, HB3940, HB3944, HB3979, HB3985, HB4113, HB4294, HB4302, HB4317, HB4324, HB4359, HB4426, HB4427, HB4430, HB4431, HB4434, HJR1077, SR42, SR35, HJR1023, HB1225, HB1374, HB1381, HB1590, HB1675, HB2153

Keywords: HB2268, Oklahoma Health Care Authority, OHCA, appropriation, General Revenue Fund, PACE, Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly, elderly care, aging Oklahomans, long-term care, Medicaid, health care funding, provider reimbursement, rate increase, low-income seniors, senior services, integrated care, emergency measure, cosmetology, barbering

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:11:47.360> Program number of key provisions. Program number of key provisions.
• <00:13:49.440> that President, one of the provisions that President, one of the provisions
• was working to offer some provisions was working to offer some provisions that<00:17:29.039>
• but kept a number of provisions but kept a number of provisions<00:18:03.440> alive<00:18:04.080
• you know, another 10 or so provisions you know, another 10 or so provisions that<00:19:48.960>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The impact of said provision on other tax provisions is not taken into account.
• Provisions that shape the contents of Provisions that shape the contents of this<00:50:53.440> report
• :35.599> tax impact of said provision on other tax impact of said provision on other tax Provisions
• you can see which provision reference you can see which provision do<01:30:25.400> and<01:30:
• uh not to have some of those Provisions uh not to have some of those Provisions expired expired

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a narrow provision near the end of the bill that calls for a supermajority vote of the Board of
• That provision, working with the supermajority provision of Senate Bill 1, is going to create an outcome
• supermajority provision. supermajority provision.
• That<00:04:10.400> provision That provision That provision working<00:04:12.280> with<00
• the supermajority provision working with the supermajority provision of<00:04:15.560> Senate<

Keywords: This meeting failed to stream and a back up recording was uploaded in it's place., 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• > the<00:31:54.799> look The second provision makes the look The second provision makes
• of these subp part F provisions. of these subp part F provisions.
• Uh, HR1 made this provision permanent. Uh, this was originally a provision from the TCJA.
• provision then as well? provision then as well? >> Uh,<00:53:21.040> Mr.
• of the tax provisions and view. of the tax provisions and view.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• WE CALL THESE SUNSET PROVISIONS AND THE OBJECTION REPORTS ALLEGE THAT THESE PROVISIONS ARE AN INVALID
• A SUNSET PROVISION IS NOT AN EXERCISE OF POWER BY AN AGENCY.
• A SUNSET PROVISION IS MUCH CLOSER TO A DISAVOWAL OF REGULATORY POWER.
• THEN THE SUNSET PROVISION DOESN'T ACTUALLY HAVE ANY OPERATIVE AFFECT.
• OUR TAKE ON SUNSET PROVISIONS ACTUALLY TURNS ON A DISTINCTION THAT MR.

Keywords: 999, senate, all