Transcript Highlights:

• in an upfront appropriation to make in an upfront appropriation to make everyone<00:05:20.199>
• <00:15:44.959> for<00:15:45.279> chap makes makes a person ineligible for chap makes
• <00:32:52.399> particular may not be uh making particular may not be uh making particular
• Okay, we'll be reconvening the House Committee on Labor for decision-making on today's agenda.
• we'll be inserting that language to make we'll be inserting that language to make it<01:31:12.840

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There's only a limited amount of taxpayer dollars, and I'm making a strong policy decision here that
• If he makes a decision that he thinks this person qualifies, we're waiting on the documents.
• But I see nothing in this bill that gives any leeway for the secretary to make a decision.
• So what the committee has to make a decision on is where do you draw that line?
• And I think we need to do a robust supervisory intervention so that we can make those right decisions

Bills: HR267, HCR105, HCR107, HCR110, HCR113, HCR114, SB4, SB52, SB57, SB145, SB152, SB194, SB237, SB333, SB433, SB483, SCR37

Keywords: diabetes, amputation, amputations, diabetic foot ulcer, peripheral artery disease, PAD, wound care, podiatry, vascular disease, endocrinology, limb salvage, health policy, public health, healthcare costs, insurance coverage, Louisiana Department of Health, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Louisiana Center for Health Innovation, patient education, screening

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:12:41.240> Authority commission uh decision-making Authority commission uh decision-making
• a couple that we had deferred to decision-making today.
• <01:47:50.960> that<01:47:51.119> we decision making on the measures that we decision
• -<01:47:54.040> making<01:47:54.480> today deferred to decision- making today deferred
• to decision- making today members<01:47:55.840> if<01:47:55.960> we'd<01:47:56.159>

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs heard SB 104, which would restrict the use of restrictive housing or solitary confinement in state-operated and state-contracted correctional facilities, with specified exceptions. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation strongly opposed the bill, saying its existing policy already meets or exceeds ACA and National Institute of Corrections standards, and objecting to language they said would give the oversight commission operational decision-making authority. The Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission supported the bill, but also said it was not intended to run operations and described concerns about restrictive housing practices, including CoreCivic’s SHIP program at Saguaro. Supporters included the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Office of the Public Defender, the Disability Rights Center, ACLU Hawaii, Easter Seals Hawaii, and individual testifiers. They argued that Native Hawaiians are disproportionately impacted by incarceration, that solitary confinement is harmful and linked to depression, anxiety, suicidality, and poor reentry outcomes, and that confinement beyond 15 days is widely condemned under international standards. Several testifiers cited suicides and deaths in custody as reasons to codify limits in statute rather than rely on policy alone. The department responded that it already has 24/7 medical care, though not 24/7 mental health coverage at one facility, and explained that it uses four custody categories: disciplinary segregation, administrative segregation, protective custody, and placements for inmates seeking separation for safety reasons. Members questioned the department and commission about the SHIP program, whether the bill was based on other states’ laws, and how current policies compare with national standards. The director said the bill was too ambiguous in places and that the department was willing to work with the commission on policy changes, but still opposed the measure as written. The committee took testimony and questions; no vote or final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• It was a difficult choice that we were able to make, but we were able to come together and make the right
• We're making those adjustments.
• Then we get blamed for it, and we have to make the decisions.
• We get our targets, and then we have to make the decisions about who has the impact or who carries the
• We're making decisions as we go. Thank you, Chair Knorr.

Transcript Highlights:

• But we are making no decision.
• And at the beginning of this, I said the emphasis here: we're not making a decision today.
• I said the emphasis here: we're not making a decision today.
• This is not a new decision that we are asking the Legislature to make.
• As discussed today, we would encourage the subcommittee to make room for a decision that keeps faith

Summary: The meeting began with a budget subcommittee hearing on a proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit trailer bill. Assembly Members Ávila Farías and another member spoke in support, emphasizing union jobs, refinery investments, and the need to decarbonize aviation. The Department of Finance said the Governor’s proposal would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold in California from 2026 to 2036. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended rejecting the proposal, arguing it is a relatively expensive way to reduce emissions, has uncertain environmental benefits, could significantly reduce transportation revenues, and conflicts with the spirit of voter restrictions on transportation taxes. Committee members questioned whether the credit would mainly benefit out-of-state producers, whether firms would have diesel tax liability to use the credit, and whether the proposal would shift production away from renewable diesel and raise fuel prices. Administration and CARB staff said the credit is intended to support aviation decarbonization, preserve jobs, and help keep California on track toward its 2045 climate goals. LAO and UC Berkeley testimony countered that the policy could mostly subsidize existing technologies, that feedstock supply is limited, and that the net emissions benefit may be small relative to the cost. Members also asked about the effect on local streets and roads, SHOP, and trade corridor funding; Finance estimated a $165 million annual revenue impact would reduce those programs, while LAO said the reductions would mean fewer projects over time. No vote was taken, and the chair said the issue would remain open for further discussion. The committee then moved to a zero-emission vehicle incentive trailer bill proposing a one-time $200 million appropriation to CARB for a new point-of-sale incentive program focused on first-time buyers and leases of new and used light-duty ZEVs. Supporters said the program would help offset the loss of the federal EV tax credit, maintain momentum in California’s ZEV transition, and use a one-to-one match with participating automakers to double the state’s investment. LAO recommended rejection, saying the proposal does not meet the high budget bar this year, lacks enough program detail to evaluate, is unlikely to move sales significantly given the size of the appropriation, and could duplicate existing state and utility programs. Members asked about current incentives across light-, medium-, and heavy-duty sectors, the recent decline in ZEV sales, and whether the program would help lower-income buyers rather than subsidize purchases that would have happened anyway. CARB said the proposal is meant to fill a gap in the light-duty market, where sales fell sharply after the federal credit expired, and noted existing programs for other vehicle classes. The Department of Finance also addressed a separate question about the Motor Vehicle Account, saying a previously planned GGRF transfer was no longer needed because updated forecasts showed the fund had sufficient balances, though LAO said the account still has a structural long-term imbalance. The discussion ended before any vote or action on the ZEV proposal.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:15:08.000> amount<00:15:08.160> of And that makes a huge amount of And that makes
• I still can't afford to make these.
• I still can't afford to make these.
• <00:19:45.840> it Donald Trump's rear end to make it Donald Trump's rear end to make it happen
• Um really make sure we action plan.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• make more of<00:55:53.079> the<00:55:53.240> decisions<00:55:53.680> and<00:55:
• I want you to make a fully informed, good decision, and that is what prompts my testimony today: to make
• on what issues it make its own decisions on what issues it raises<01:32:37.679> before<01:32:
• It's very difficult to make a decision when you have all the information, all the facts, and all law
• It's very difficult to make a decision when you have all the information, all the facts, and all the

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on House Bill 610, which would fold the Office of the Consumer Advocate into the Department of Energy rather than fully eliminate consumer advocacy functions. The prime sponsor argued the current office is small, funded by a special assessment on ratepayers, and duplicative of DOE work. He said moving the function to DOE would streamline energy policy review, reduce bureaucracy, and better focus the larger agency on lowering residential energy costs. He also disputed claims that the Consumer Advocate is independent, saying the office is appointed through a political process similar to DOE leadership. Committee members and the sponsor discussed whether the bill would actually relocate existing positions or replace them, and whether the Department of Energy would absorb the cost of the transferred staff. The sponsor said the fiscal note shows roughly a million-dollar reduction in both revenue assessment and spending, and that the bill would effectively reduce the office from five positions to three. He also defended his cost estimates for energy-code-related housing impacts and said the Consumer Advocate has sometimes supported policies he считает increase costs, such as energy-efficiency measures and building code changes. He argued the office should focus more on energy supply and generation, including natural gas and nuclear, rather than efficiency alone. Representative Wendy Thomas testified in opposition, saying the Consumer Advocate is an important, fair, and impartial voice for ratepayers and warning that the bill was fiscally irresponsible because the incumbent could still be owed salary and benefits if the office were repealed. She also said the bill’s drafting was confusing and that the Consumer Advocate’s role is to push back on utilities on behalf of consumers. Other members raised questions about whether the DOE would simply inherit the same political appointment structure and whether the bill would meaningfully lower bills. No vote was taken in the excerpt; the chair indicated additional testimony would follow, and the Department of Energy was present to answer questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• that they need in order to make a local decision.
• 13:25.120> like make decisions around things like make decisions around things like spraying<00
• So then we have make a local decision.
• a decision if you want to make that trial.
• > you<01:13:01.760> want decision and make a decision if you want decision and make a decision

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The Health and Human Services Oversight Committee met on April 17 and approved the prior meeting minutes, then set its next meeting for May 29 at 9:30 a.m. Members also discussed a New Futures effort to collect questions about Medicaid changes and post answers as an FAQ, with a preference that the FAQ live on New Futures’ website rather than the state website. The commissioner’s office said it would coordinate responses and that the issue is still evolving. The main presentation was an HHS update focused on the state public health laboratory and its work during Public Health Lab Week. Officials reviewed the lab’s history, its biosafety functions, and its role in disease prevention, food safety, preparedness, and response. They highlighted mosquito surveillance for eastern equine encephalitis, West Nile virus, and Jamestown Canyon virus, noting that the lab tested more than a quarter million mosquitoes last year and that mosquito testing helps provide early warning for local public health decisions. They also discussed rabies testing, saying New Hampshire’s lab is the only one in the state that performs it, that rabies is fatal once symptoms begin, and that the work is preventable through early prophylaxis. Members asked about federal funding cuts, water testing, and whether CDC changes to rabies testing would affect New Hampshire. The department said it had been affected by an $80 million federal clawback but was managing through other funds and staff reassignments; for the water lab, temporary staff had been hired to continue swimming-area testing. Officials said the state remains able to handle rabies testing and that federal changes would mainly affect areas without similar services. They also answered questions on Jamestown Canyon virus, saying New Hampshire had one human case in 2025 and three in 2024, compared with zero West Nile cases in 2025 and one in 2024, and that weather and protective measures influence mosquito-borne disease levels. Additional questions covered biosafety levels, cyanobacteria coordination with the Department of Environmental Services, and the Brown Building flood mitigation, which was described as about halfway complete with a hoped-for reopening of the west side by June.

Transcript Highlights:

• it makes the bill great.
• So please give these women a chance to make the decision that is best for her and her baby.
• I come to this issue as a member of a bank board to who makes decisions about what types of interest
• And I think that it doesn't take into account each individual bank in the decisions they make it prioritizes
• iota accounts over customer accounts and banks need to be able to make certain decisions that work for

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Let them make a step.
• Let them make a step.
• Let them make a step.
• Local people are smart enough, the educators, the parents, and so on, to make the right decisions for
• for<01:45:49.840> their make the right decisions for their make the right decisions for their

Bills: HF751, HF3550, HF3764, HF1490

Keywords: parental notification, school safety, bullying, harassment, violence, prohibited conduct, student discipline, charter school, school district, data practices, student privacy, parent rights, guardian notification, school incident reporting, cyberbullying, restraint, reasonable force, anti-bullying policy, school administration, student conduct

Transcript Highlights:

• seen our law enforcement and intelligence community institution so badly infected with political decision-making
• Who's by anybody else before we make that decision. I'm just telling you, I'm going to abuse it.
• that decision-making process, and they will only have my full support so long as it upholds absolutely
• But I'm not asking you to make the decision. I'm asking you whether you will take a stand.
• You'll have to make the decisions. You'll be accountable to this committee. But no on Elon Musk.

Transcript Highlights:

• Does that make sense?
• qualifying volunteer time does that make qualifying volunteer time does that make sense<00:21:32.760
• <00:22:26.640> on<00:22:27.640> um executive decision on um executive decision on um
• for the town of Hudson uh want to make for the town of Hudson uh want to make clear<00:30:00.240
• House Bill 147 will make it clear.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They have college going as a new mindset and then when it's time to start making decisions about their
• then when it's time to start making then when it's time to start making decisions<00:20:31.480><
• We needed to make a decision about whether we were going to either shrink the program because we didn't
• It really would have been nice to have had this slide prior to us making decisions because I think a
• making decisions because the prior to us making decisions because the I<00:30:30.040> think<00

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Votruba Young Scholars Academy 00:01:55 Taxation of Financial Deposit Institutions 00:36:50, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• a decision like one of your decisions. a decision like one of your decisions.
• the state would make investments. the state would make investments.
• to make a motion on that bill? to make a motion on that bill?
• It makes a lot of sense.
• It makes a lot of sense.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And that way, like me as an agency, I'm not making a hiring decision whether I have to pay someone based
• Historically, that's more of a policy decision that we view and default those decisions to the legislative
• So if there are further questions, I'm sure they make themselves available.
• decisions on in the next session.
• This one is more of a policy decision.

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave policies, labor market conditions, and prevailing wage issues, then later took up committee rules and bill-draft jurisdiction. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the state has paid the full family premium since 1979, described cost-control and benefit-enhancement changes over time, and explained current plan options, wellness incentives, employer wellness discounts, and the upcoming bid process for the 2027-29 contract. HRMS then presented compensation comparisons showing state classified pay generally trails private and regional markets, with larger gaps at higher-level jobs, and reviewed benefits and leave policies, including the new enhanced annual leave and new-hire leave, the state’s unpaid family leave structure, and varying tuition reimbursement practices. Job Service reported on labor force trends, low unemployment, high labor force participation, job openings, and wage growth, and OMB said there are no state prevailing-wage requirements beyond federal Davis-Bacon rules for federally funded projects. The committee then considered a proposed amendment to Joint Rule 211 to better align the health insurance mandate review process with recent statutory changes. Members discussed how the rule should reference both the committee’s required actuarial reports and the Legislative Council cost-benefit analysis, and the amendment was adopted on a roll call vote. The committee also discussed how its jurisdiction decisions affect whether a bill draft receives actuarial analysis, with staff explaining that a decision not to take jurisdiction means the bill is not treated as impacting the relevant retirement or health plans for purposes of that analysis. After that, the committee began reviewing bill drafts for jurisdiction. The first draft, bill draft 33, would automatically renew pre-tax elections for dental and vision coverage during open enrollment instead of requiring annual re-election. Members debated whether it had any actuarial impact, noting the state does not pay those premiums directly, and the discussion was still underway when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• you know we make our own money. you know we make our own money.
• charter approval, renewal, and making charter approval, renewal, and revocation<00:49:03.119> decisions
• wanted to make that. wanted to make that. >> And<01:08:42.239> Mr.
• It makes it more difficult.
• So I It makes it more difficult.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That's a policy decision that this body needs to think about and make.
• That's a policy decision that this body needs to think about and make.
• That's a policy decision that this body needs to think about and make.
• That's a policy decision that this body needs to think about and make.
• That's a policy decision that this body needs to think about and make.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Seeing none, are we ready for decision making? >> Okay.
• We'll go right into decision making on this measure. All right.
• We'll go right into decision making on this measure. The chair is having conferred.
• This is strictly decision-making, so there will be no testimony taken.
• This is strictly decision-making, so there will be no testimony taken.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Triple C committee heard SB 2799, relating to the Kalopa settlement. Testimony was largely supportive, with several individuals and homestead organizations urging passage and asking that Hawaiian Homes Commission, HHCA beneficiaries, and community representatives be included in transition planning. The Department of Health opposed the added reporting requirement as unnecessary and argued its role is limited to patient care, while committee members pushed back and emphasized the need for broader community input and landowner participation, especially from DHHL and DLNR. The chair recommended passage of SB 2799 unamended, with a committee report noting that the required May report should include the interagency transition working group timeline, proposed budget, and proposed procedures. The recommendation was adopted unanimously by the committees present. The joint agenda also took up SB 2887, which would expand the important agricultural land qualified agricultural tax credit to include Hawaiian homelands used for subsistence or agricultural/pastoral purposes and broaden eligible costs to include orchard or fruit-bearing crops and clearing former sugar and pineapple lands. The Department of Land and Natural Resources supported the concept but requested amendments; the Department of Taxation and Department of Agriculture provided comments and information on administration and existing claims. The Hawaii Farm Bureau supported the intent but argued the bill should create a new tax credit in Chapter 235 rather than fold DHHL lands into the existing IAL credit. After discussion, the chair recommended passage with the Hawaii Farm Bureau’s amendments and technical changes, and both committees adopted that recommendation. The Hawaiian Affairs committee then acted on several bills. SB 1406, SB 521, and SB 1654 were deferred indefinitely because the chair said related work was already underway and the committee wanted to avoid duplicative paperwork. SB 3247, relating to Mona Ala/Royal Mausoleum, was amended to convert the proposal into a Royal Mausoleum Working Group with periodic reporting and stakeholder input, and it passed with amendments. SB 112, SB 131, and SB 2443 were advanced with amendments that primarily deferred effective dates to keep the measures moving while discussions continue. The committee also noted that some measures were being deferred or reshaped to align with ongoing administrative or companion-bill processes, and the amended recommendations were adopted by the members present.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, thank you making everything happen.
• uh is a no cost item that makes uh is a no cost item that makes modifications<00:15:32.240> to
• Sections 8, 33, and 34 make changes to child welfare investigations and the appeal of agency decisions
• :21.839> the<00:54:22.079> bill decisions definitely influenced the bill decisions definitely
• undocumented adults was not a decision undocumented adults was not a decision that<00:54:32.880>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• As you can see, we started making some decent progress.
• When we make decisions regarding healthcare, those decisions are made to encompass everyone in every
• We would also see, as far as any of the premium changes, we know as far as making that decision whether
• We are trying to make our voices heard at the federal level.
• rational decisions and good policies.