Transcript Highlights:

• This is an unfortunate part of this process.
• an unfortunate part of of this<00:06:34.479><c> process.
• That's part of already in another part of statute.
• </c> the bill and come back next year in part the bill and come back next year in part because<00:30:
• As part of our stakeholder discussions, we did discuss this.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's a remarkably important part of decision-making in the state.
• There continue to be other issues that come up as a part of that.
• The formal concurrence will come as a part of the rulemaking.
• And what we want is that this part, or that it is better.
• She said they had been part of formal collaborations with DPR by taking part in the Sustainable Pesticide

Summary: The joint hearing focused on whether California’s pesticide program is meeting its public health, environmental, and sustainable pest management goals. Opening remarks from the committee chairs emphasized the scale of pesticide use in California, the importance of AB 2113 and the sustainable pest management roadmap, and the need to review DPR’s oversight and enforcement relationship with county agricultural commissioners. Senator Blakespear also referenced community concerns in Ladera Ranch and said the California Department of Public Health was investigating possible environmental links to childhood cancer cases. Panel One featured scientists and legal experts who argued that pesticide exposure is widespread, begins before birth, and can have long-term neurodevelopmental, respiratory, and other health effects, especially for farmworker and low-income communities. They said California has strong pesticide-use reporting, but lacks systematic biomonitoring and better links between exposure data and health outcomes. They also argued DPR and county commissioners should more consistently evaluate cumulative exposures and safer alternatives, and that pest control advisors need stronger training and less conflict of interest. Assembly Member Schultz echoed concerns that California should look at pesticide classes and mixtures rather than only individual chemicals. Panel Two, representing frontline and environmental justice advocates, criticized DPR for allowing continued use of highly hazardous pesticides, for relying on pesticide sales revenue, and for failing to account for the full health, environmental, and social costs of pesticide use. Speakers said reevaluations and mitigations move too slowly, that DPR rarely addresses combined exposures, and that implementation of protections varies widely by county. They called for tiered mill fees, stronger timelines, more protective buffers, and clearer accountability between DPR and county agricultural commissioners. Panel Three, from regulated entities and agricultural groups, supported DPR’s scientific rigor but stressed the need for predictable registration timelines, more transparency, and better milestones as AB 2113’s deadlines approach. They also urged more investment in pest prevention, SPM support, and farmer access to safer tools. Panel Four, from county agricultural commissioners, described their role in local permitting, inspections, investigations, and enforcement, while saying county resources have not kept pace with expanding responsibilities and new mandates. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are part of the architecture of what the laws are.
• But the other part of this issue is HCD's role. I don't know.
• And that would be part of a motion to advance the bill today. Okay.
• So as long as the safety part of it is addressed, I'm okay with it. Thank you.
• of part of part of the answer I know we're trying to work towards is just number one more clarity so

Summary: The committee began without a quorum and operated briefly as a subcommittee while the chair outlined public comment procedures and the consent calendar. The first major item was AB 1751, a townhome/homeownership measure by Assembly Members Quirk-Silva and Wicks. The author accepted amendments to strike the bill’s wage provision and to limit unit size and project size, but declined other proposed amendments on downzoning, demolition protections, and site restrictions. Supporters, including the New California Coalition and California Conference of Carpenters, argued the bill would expand attainable homeownership and create more townhome sites; opponents and “opposed unless amended” witnesses raised concerns about renter protections, demolition/displacement, density impacts, and local control. Several labor groups and local government representatives were neutral or supportive of the amended bill, while the committee members discussed the tension between housing production and worker protections. The committee ultimately passed AB 1751 as amended to the Senate Committee on Local Government on a roll call vote, with the bill held on call for absent members. The committee then heard AB 750, which expands HCD’s Portfolio Reinvestment Program to more at-risk affordable housing developments needing rehabilitation. The author and supporters from the California Housing Consortium and California Housing Partnership said the bill would help preserve deed-restricted housing facing expiring affordability restrictions and disrepair, especially when paired with anticipated bond funding. Members asked about the program’s prior funding and how it works to keep units affordable through rehabilitation rather than state takeover; the author emphasized the goal was preservation of existing affordable housing stock. AB 750 passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee on a roll call vote and was held on call for absent senators. The consent calendar was also approved on call. Next, the committee heard AB 306, which would create a more workable statewide appeals and code-interpretation process at the California Building Standards Commission for local building code decisions. The author and supporters from AIA California and the Housing Action Coalition said the bill would reduce inconsistent interpretations across 540 jurisdictions, improve transparency, and support housing innovation while preserving local authority over local matters. Members discussed how the bill would interact with local amendments and alternative methods and means, and the committee moved the bill to the Senate Committee on Local Government on a roll call vote. AB 2612, directing HCD and the Building Standards Commission to develop standards for plug-in photovoltaic systems in new construction, also advanced to Appropriations after supportive testimony and brief questions about safety standards and stakeholder consultation. AB 1070, which orders a study on allowing 3- to 10-unit missing-middle housing under the Residential Code and requires a one-time report on code-related cost pressures, passed to Appropriations after building officials removed opposition. Later, AB 2181, a narrow bill concerning hotel and motel valuation and density bonus potential, passed to Local Government after testimony from Unite Here and others about protecting hospitality jobs and preventing speculative appraisals. Finally, AB 1237, clarifying safety rules for private in-unit pools in hotels and condominiums, passed to Health after the author described added safety measures such as pool covers, alarms, emergency devices, certified operators, and AEDs.

Transcript Highlights:

• I am part of the work that I do.
• I'm part of the California that I am, and the part of California that I'm from.
• Don't ask us to do our part.
• Taxpayers have done their part. Consumers are more than doing their part.
• Taxpayers have done their part. Consumers are more than doing their part.

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Senate and Assembly Health Committees focused on the “cost of uncertainty” in health coverage, access, and affordability amid federal policy changes. Opening remarks from committee leaders and members emphasized that California’s gains under the Affordable Care Act and Health for All policies—high coverage rates, consumer protections, and lower uninsured rates—are now threatened by federal rollbacks, including the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits and H.R. 1. Members repeatedly cited rising premiums, skipped care, medical debt, and the risk of coverage losses, especially for low-income Californians, workers, seniors, and immigrant communities. The first panel featured federal policy and state implementation experts, including Don Joyce, Jessica Altman of Covered California, and Elizabeth Lansberg of HCAI’s Office of Health Care Affordability. Testimony described the ACA’s coverage expansions and the current federal threats: shorter open enrollment, more verification requirements, loss of enhanced subsidies, and changes affecting immigrants and preventive coverage. Covered California reported that average monthly premiums could nearly double without the subsidies, new enrollment is down sharply, and more consumers are shifting into bronze plans with higher deductibles. HCAI explained its affordability strategy through spending targets, consolidation review, and primary care investment, while members asked about the impact of federal cuts on provider taxes, uncompensated care, and whether California can sustain coverage without new revenue. The second panel, with UC Berkeley Labor Center’s Miranda Dietz and California Health Care Foundation’s Christoph Stremikis, broadened the discussion to statewide cost drivers and consumer impacts. They highlighted that more than half of Californians under 65 rely on job-based coverage, yet premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs have risen faster than wages. They also pointed to medical debt, administrative waste, market consolidation, and underinvestment in primary care as major drivers of unaffordability. Members asked about the 25% of health spending that does not improve patient care, the role of fraud versus administrative friction, the effect of cost growth targets on workers, and the need for preventive care and possible revenue solutions. The hearing then moved to a third panel on human impacts, beginning with testimony from a Central Valley promotora describing how families are choosing lower-tier coverage, struggling with diabetes care, and facing higher premiums after subsidy losses.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, then we go into owner parts. Parts pairing is a specific term used by manufacturers.
• Um, then we go into owner parts. is. Um, then we go into owner parts.
• So you not having the parts pairing.
• </c> are part of that agricultural question. are part of that agricultural question.
• </c> the parts language. the parts language.

Bills: SF0052, SF0024

Keywords: wildlife management, environmental restoration, funding, invasive species, aquatic ecosystems, native fish, habitat conservation, lottery, debit card payments, gambling regulations, state revenue, financial transactions, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's part of living a wholesome life.
• Why is that not a part of this legislation? Mr.
• I understand that this is a part of the testing window, but if the intervention part of it is also part
• Okay, well, you remember that part, and then I can go to...
• Okay, well, you remember that part, and then I can go to the part where she says the same things before

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 2266, which would change school release-time policy for religious instruction from permissive to mandatory for school districts and charter governing bodies. The sponsor and supporters said the bill protects parental choice, religious liberty, and constitutional release-time programs, while opponents argued it would reduce local control, pull students from instructional time, and expose schools to constitutional and social harms. After public testimony and debate over liability, indoctrination, and academic impact, the committee voted 7-5 to give HB 2266 a due pass recommendation. The committee then took up House Bill 2193, a cleanup measure related to student directory information and parent organizations. The bill would allow parents of enrolled students or representatives of nonprofit organizations supporting a school to receive directory information unless a parent or eligible student opts out. Supporters from PTO/PTA groups said the change is needed so parent organizations can continue communicating with families and building school community, while members raised concerns about whether the language should be narrowed to avoid political or other misuse of student data. The sponsor said he was open to an amendment, and the committee approved HB 2193 on a 10-1 vote, with one member present. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 2075, which would require public school districts to submit superintendent and other top administrator contracts or attestations to ADE and create a searchable online database of compensation details, including salary, benefits, and car allowances. The sponsor described it as a transparency measure, and the committee discussed an amendment to add more specific filing deadlines and the online database requirement. Opponents from school administrators and rural districts argued that superintendent salaries are already public, that the bill should also apply to charter and private schools receiving public funds, and that it could add burdens or distort comparisons across different public-sector labor markets. Supporters said the bill would make total compensation easier to access and reduce public records requests. The sponsor closed by saying the bill would centralize compensation information and simplify disclosure for districts.

Transcript Highlights:

• Although I do thank you for the beginning parts, the first parts of the amendment.
• uh beginning parts, the first parts<00:53:40.079><c> of</c><00:53:40.240><c> the</c><00:53:40.400><c
• I just think parts of the amendment.
• Do you think shouldn't be part of the current system?
• </c> next page two, line one, or part-time next page two, line one, or part-time service,<01:39:55.600

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee met on HB 510 and HB 112, but the discussion focused almost entirely on HB 510, which would establish due process rights for students, student organizations, and faculty members in disciplinary proceedings at state institutions of higher education. The chair reviewed proposed amendments already approved or being considered, including revised definitions, confidentiality language for grievance information, removal of the adverse-inference language tied to self-incrimination, changes to cross-examination procedures, and narrowing an emergency exception by removing property damage and focusing on immediate threats to physical health or safety. The committee also discussed whether the hearing officer should have discretion to require a third party to conduct cross-examination, with the sponsor saying the word should remain “may” so the officer can respond to the circumstances of each case. Members opposed to the bill argued that existing campus procedures already provide adequate due process and that the proposal is unnecessary, potentially intimidating to complainants, and disruptive to university policies and collective bargaining agreements. They objected especially to language allowing the accused to be present during cross-examination of an accuser and to the use of the term “victim” before facts are established. Supporters said the bill is intended to ensure basic fairness for accused students and faculty, that the language was revised to address concerns, and that the rights listed are appropriate because serious allegations can have lasting consequences even outside the criminal context. No vote or final action was taken in the portion provided; the committee remained in discussion/caucus over the bill language.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's the prevention part.
• The two-part question. I can start off with that.
• The two-part maybe key to that? The two-part question.
• You need to be part of that area's community.
• You you need to be part of that area.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Commission on Race and Access to Opportunity convened its first meeting of the 2026 interim, established a quorum, and introduced staff and a summer student intern. The chair explained that the commission’s first topic would be crime, public safety, violence prevention, and mentoring, and invited the police chiefs of Lexington, Louisville, and Bowling Green to discuss how the legislature could help them do their jobs more effectively. The chiefs described a shift in policing from a more enforcement-only approach to community policing built on relationships, trust, and prevention. They said community engagement and mentorship are central to reducing violence, and cited examples such as community engagement teams, youth programs, and efforts to build trust through regular presence in neighborhoods. Louisville’s chief said the department’s community engagement work has helped improve homicide solvability, while Bowling Green’s chief emphasized that juvenile crime and stolen guns are major concerns and that the state cannot arrest its way out of the problem. All three stressed that policing depends on cooperation with residents, prosecutors, and courts. Members then asked about recruiting officers who reflect the communities they serve. The chiefs said successful recruitment depends on personal relationships, officers serving as ambassadors, and reaching people through community presence rather than only traditional ads. Bowling Green described junior police academy and cadet programs that begin with youth and often lead to hiring, while Lexington said it uses social media, a community police academy, and outreach to keep local residents in the profession. They also said character matters more than background and that officers should be embedded in the neighborhoods they serve. A final exchange focused on immigrant and refugee communities and fear of police. The chiefs said they are trying to reduce fear through community police academies, multilingual outreach, neighborhood meetings, and clear communication that local police do not enforce civil immigration detainers. Louisville said it has marked SWAT vehicles more clearly and works with community organizations to spread accurate information. The chiefs repeatedly emphasized that their role is to keep people safe, protect constitutional rights, and make sure residents feel able to call 911 when they need help.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you'll respond to that part of his questions as well. Happy to.
• I think that's part of the challenge, right?
• So that's part of the reasoning.
• So there is part of our resource request is for that as well.
• So as a part of the portfolio for the Fifth Assessment, we have a So as a part of the portfolio for the

Summary: The subcommittee heard testimony on the governor’s proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit, which would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold for use in California from 2026 to 2036. The Department of Finance and CARB argued the credit would help decarbonize aviation, support refinery transitions, and keep fuel production and jobs in California. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended rejecting the proposal, saying it is a relatively expensive way to reduce greenhouse gases, could have uncertain or limited climate benefits, and would reduce diesel excise tax revenue that supports highways, local streets and roads, and other transportation programs. A major point of debate was whether the credit would simply shift limited feedstocks from renewable diesel to SAF rather than create new low-carbon fuel supply. Professor Aaron Smith and the LAO said that because feedstocks such as used cooking oil, tallow, and vegetable oils are limited and already used in other fuel markets, the policy could increase SAF at the expense of renewable diesel, with possible increases in fuel prices and little net emissions benefit. Administration and CARB staff disputed that outcome, saying additional waste-based feedstocks are available and that the policy would not meaningfully raise gasoline or diesel prices. Senators focused on feedstock availability, impacts on road funding, fairness to consumers, and whether the proposal was really aimed at preserving specific refineries such as Phillips 66. Public comment was sharply divided. Labor representatives, refinery workers, airlines, Boeing, airports, and some local residents supported the proposal, emphasizing jobs, refinery investment, and aviation’s need for a liquid-fuel decarbonization pathway. Environmental and transportation groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, World Resources Institute, Earthjustice, California Environmental Voters, counties, cities, and trucking and asphalt associations, opposed it, citing weak net climate benefits, possible fuel-price impacts, and losses to transportation funding. No vote was taken; the chair announced all items would be held open for a future hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• "That would be after the... that's a part of bill discussion, not part of the hearing."
• They're not part of this. Correct. Only public schools.
• So what if a private school wants to be a part of this?
• Mess-up on my part.
• Amendments that are being offered as a part of 2402. Last call.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 2401, which would require physicians to complete continuing education on nutrition and metabolic health as part of the state’s rural health transformation effort. HHS supported the bill, saying it would help physicians better address chronic disease and preserve federal grant points tied to the state’s application. A member of the public also testified in favor, arguing that better nutrition education could improve diabetes outcomes and reduce costs. The committee then adopted an amendment to add the Board of Occupational Therapy Practice to the background-check statute so the occupational therapy compact could proceed, and it passed the bill as amended on a roll call vote. The committee next heard House Bill 1621, which would require the Presidential Fitness Physical Fitness Test in elementary, middle, and high school physical education courses. HHS said the bill was part of the rural health transformation application and could help preserve federal funding, but members raised many questions about the test’s criteria, adaptive options for students with disabilities, equipment needs, and whether the bill should apply to non-public schools. Senator Clemens offered an amendment to limit the requirement to public schools, but it failed. Senator Hogan then offered an amendment to clarify exemptions and allow DPI to align implementation with federal guidance; that amendment passed. A further amendment adding language allowing DPI to establish criteria for and exceptions to the test also passed. The committee then approved the bill as amended on a roll call vote. The committee also considered House Bill 1622, which joins North Dakota to the physician assistant licensure compact. HHS said the compact would improve access to care, especially in rural areas, support military families, and help preserve rural health transformation funding. Members noted the compact had been discussed in a prior session and that many earlier concerns had been resolved. After brief discussion about the compact process and its consistency with other interstate compacts, the committee voted to do pass the bill. Finally, the committee began Senate Bill 2402, which expands pharmacists’ prescriptive authority and therapeutic substitution powers. HHS and the Board of Pharmacy supported the bill as a way to improve access to care and maintain rural health transformation funding. Senator Roers introduced a detailed amendment negotiated with the Board of Medicine and Board of Pharmacy to narrow and clarify the bill, including notification requirements, limits on certain drug categories, and patient-protection language for therapeutic substitution. The Board of Pharmacy then testified in support of the broader bill and explained the CLIA-waived testing provisions and the repeal of the older, narrower pharmacist-testing language. The hearing and amendment discussion were still underway when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Those are part of a number of operating adjustments that were part of Governor's recs.
• <c> governor's</c> was part of the governor's was part of the governor's recommendations.<00:26:33.360
• This is for other types of vehicles. part of the changes found in section 19 part of the changes found
• Um this is part of uh buckets.
• </c> over and so this was uh included as part over and so this was uh included as part of<01:00:50.559

Bills: HF2438

Keywords: transportation finance, transportation policy, MnDOT, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Department of Public Safety, Metropolitan Council, highway funding, trunk highway fund, county state-aid highway fund, municipal state-aid street fund, state aid roads, local roads, bridge funding, road construction, transit funding, passenger rail, freight rail, aviation, airport development, safe routes to school

Transcript Highlights:

• So as part of our third phase, As part of our third phase of the pilot, we actually enabled this participation
• of the microgrid. support those customers that are part of the microgrid.
• So what is this group I'm part of?
• The China part, the China part. Why don't you talk about that again for a second?
• So if we focus on that part of it, which is the biggest part, I think, of the concern facing us.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think that's the restrictive part of it that is very important in your bill.
• I think that's the restrictive part of it that is very important in your bill.
• I think that's the restrictive part of it that is very important in your bill.
• I think that's the restrictive part of it that is very important in your bill.
• I think that's the restrictive part of it that is very important in your bill.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And the big part of this is a new young child credit.
• And the big part of this is a new young child credit.
• It's part of that.
• Yes, as I said, this is part of the governor's comprehensive gun violence safety act, and as part of
• But that part is actually going there.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House File 5055, the governor’s supplemental tax budget. Commissioner of Revenue Paul Marquart outlined the proposal as a balanced budget package that would leave a positive bottom line in the current biennium and beyond. He emphasized family-focused tax relief, especially a new refundable young child credit for children ages 0 to 4, which would provide up to $3,000 for one child or $6,000 for two or more, benefit about 104,000 families, and phase out at higher incomes. He also described federal conformity changes, including updates to business interest deductions, dependent care credits, and Section 179 expensing, along with omitted federal items such as research expensing and opportunity zones due to cost and policy concerns. Marquart also defended broader tax modernization proposals, including expanding the sales tax to selected consumer services such as accounting, banking, brokerage, and legal services while lowering the statewide sales tax rate, and creating a social media tax on consumer data collection that would fund an AI readiness special revenue fund rather than the general fund. He said these changes would make the sales tax less regressive and better aligned with the modern economy. Additional provisions mentioned included a gun-related gross receipts tax on firearms and ammunition, cannabis tax technical changes, historic structure rehabilitation conformity, and added auditors for tax compliance. Testimony from outside groups was mixed. Nan Madden of the Minnesota Budget Project supported the governor’s approach as a response to federal tax and spending changes, praised the decision not to conform to opportunity zones or federal no-tax-on-tips/overtime provisions, and urged even stronger revenue measures. Brian Lake of the Minnesota State Bar Association strongly opposed the proposed sales tax on consumer legal services, arguing it would burden low- and middle-income people in sensitive cases and create unfairness when individuals litigate against the state. Tanner Fritsinger of the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees supported the sales tax base expansion and the social media tax as ways to broaden revenue without raising the base rate. The committee chair thanked the commissioner and then began hearing public testimony, with additional testifiers queued up.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'm going to call the vote on Amendment 0630. record what parts were taken out if record what parts
• <00:41:44.119><c> public</c><00:41:44.400><c> health</c> part-time public health part-time public health
• Representatives from different parts of state government were interviewed.
• </c><01:13:20.560><c> is</c> reimbursement rate and the sad part is reimbursement rate and the sad part
• </c> there's already clean claim statute part there's already clean claim statute part of<01:20:42.520

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:09:29.959><c> of</c> incentivizes resentment on the part of incentivizes resentment on the part
• </c><00:25:35.200><c> of</c> House DFL caucus has not been part of House DFL caucus has not been part
• </c> copy of the NISCA bill which is not part copy of the NISCA bill which is not part of<00:26:55.760
• So, was that a part of of me right now. So, was that a part of your<00:37:32.480><c> champion?
• </c><00:37:47.280><c> of</c> you tell me if this has been a part of you tell me if this has been a part

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Russell Holmes, I represent parts of Boston, Sixth Suffolk, so parts of Mattapan, Dorchester, Hyde Park
• I am proud to serve the First Middlesex, which is Ashby, Dunstable, parts of Groton, and parts of Pepperell
• So that's part of that give and take.
• part of delivery of... ...are an essential part of the health care continuum and an essential part of
• Diggs, am a part of. I don't... ...which I, too, Rep. Diggs, am a part of.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Ways and Means held a Health and Human Services budget hearing in Clinton, with opening remarks from Chairs Meg Kilcoyne and Robin Kennedy, local officials, and many House and Senate members introducing themselves. The hearing focused on Governor Healey’s FY27 EOHHS and MassHealth budgets, with repeated themes of rising health care costs, federal funding uncertainty, workforce shortages, and access to care in underserved regions. Members also raised concerns about primary care shortages, rural and regional disparities, behavioral health access, maternal health, food insecurity, and the impact of federal policy changes on Massachusetts programs. EOHHS Secretary Kiame Mahaniah said the FY27 EOHHS budget totals $33.7 billion, reflecting mostly non-discretionary growth from health care costs, labor costs, caseload increases, and provider rate pressures. He highlighted targeted investments in foster care, family resource centers, maternal health, youth services, nutrition programs, immigrant legal services, and human service workforce rates, while warning that federal actions could strip roughly $3.5 billion annually from the state’s health care funding. In response to questions, he defended the administration’s cooperation with federal audits and program integrity efforts, discussed the primary care crisis, and said the state is trying to preserve core services while preparing for a more difficult FY28 budget cycle. MassHealth Undersecretary Mike Levine then described two major FY27 challenges: double-digit cost growth and the expected effects of the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act. He said MassHealth’s proposed $22.7 billion gross budget includes a 7.5% increase and relies on a moratorium on new expansions plus targeted reductions, including a $1,000 annual adult dental cap, ending GLP-1 coverage for weight loss only, reducing care management to peer-state levels, and work groups to slow growth in PCA, adult foster care, and adult day health spending. Members questioned the impact on Boston Health Care for the Homeless, preventive care, and regional access; Levine said the changes are meant to preserve sustainability, that children and certain disabled populations remain protected, and that the administration will continue working with providers, advocates, and the Legislature on implementation and longer-term reforms.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> this whole Readiness thing because part this whole Readiness thing because part of<00:21:09.360>
• So it's part of the UHS campus plan.
• </c><01:21:06.280><c> of</c> session we got money to do as part of session we got money to do as part
• /c> Commercial so it's part of it's part of Commercial so it's part of it's part of the<01:21:38.440>
• No, just that whole part of the redevelopment part for the village—the campus village.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That it's part of their strategy.
• So we would be part of that process.
• We're just more um that part.
• </c><01:58:12.680><c> I</c> we would be part of that process. I we would be part of that process.
• Um, that's already part of state law as is part of the process again, you know, through the Board of

Bills: HCR13, HCR61, HCR136, HCR185, HCR155, HCR68, HCR174, HCR178, HCR179, HCR91, HCR103, HCR115, HCR199, HR15, HR128, HR175, HR147, HR62, HR164, HR168, HR169, HR83, HR95, HR107, HR189

Keywords: coral reefs, sunscreen, environmental education, student stewardship, marine conservation, reforestation, Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, native forests, climate resilience, sustainable practices, economic opportunity, biodiversity, wildland-urban interface, WUI, wildfire mitigation, wildfire safety, Maui County, County of Maui, Kauai

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land met on March 31, 2026, and heard testimony on several resolutions. HCR 13/HR 50, which asks DLNR to work with DOE and the Public Charter School Commission on a student coral stewardship program, drew comments from DLNR, which said it stood on written testimony and had proposed amendments, and from supporters in the room. HCR 61, urging investment in reforestation policies, workforce, nursery capacity, and related support for public and private lands, received strong support from DLNR and multiple testifiers, including members of a reforestation policy hui, a resident, and others who emphasized watershed protection, flood and fire resilience, and the need to upgrade nursery infrastructure and staffing. Committee members asked questions about nursery modernization, staffing, island-specific needs, and whether reforestation could reduce wildfire impacts; the DLNR witness said all islands need investment, with especially large opportunities on Hawaiʻi Island, and that healthier forests improve resilience though they cannot eliminate climate-related risks. The committee then heard HCR 136/HR 128 on wildland-urban interface safety standards for Maui plantation towns, but no one testified. It also heard HCR 185/HR 175, which urges denial of permits for ICE detention-related warehouses; Chris Coffey of Immua Alliance testified in support, saying migrant survivors of exploitation are harmed when ICE detains people and that Hawaii would not be the first place to take such action, citing examples from other states and cities. In questioning, members explored whether a local facility would keep people closer to families and services or instead increase local detention; Coffey said detention generally cuts off access to services and can intensify fear, and that a local facility could incentivize more detention and make survivors less likely to come forward. Finally, the committee heard HCR 155/HR 147 supporting the Hawaii Water Safety Coalition’s Hawaii Water Safety Act. Testifiers included Allison Shapera, who described the statewide water safety plan, Hawaii’s high drowning rate, the economic and human costs of drownings, and her personal loss of her daughter in a preventable drowning; Kirsten Hermstead and Kalani Vierra of the Hawaiian Lifeguard Association said the plan’s recommendations need legislative recognition to help with implementation and grant funding; and Jessamine Town Horner testified by Zoom as a co-founder and bereaved family advocate. The transcript provided does not show any votes or final committee actions on the measures discussed.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> part hasn't changed. part hasn't changed.
• </c><00:25:57.920><c> um</c> that's what the next part um that's what the next part um talks<00:25:58.920
• And I say readily with a little part.
• </c> part with the wiggle room? part with the wiggle room?
• </c> as part of the whole budget process. as part of the whole budget process.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee took up HB 1563, a special education aid formula bill, after a brief recess. Members reviewed a replace-all amendment that would keep the current reimbursement lag structure but make the bill effective July 1, 2028, with districts beginning to collect the new data in the next biennium. The amendment changes the reimbursement tiers from a dollar-based system to one tied to average per-pupil spending: districts would pay 100% below 2.5 times average per-pupil spending, 85% from 2.5 to 3.5 times, 20% from 3.5 to 10 times, and 10% above 10 times, with the state covering the remainder. Speakers emphasized that the bill is intended as an incremental step to gather better data before any larger expansion of state participation. A major new section would create a risk-based monitoring program for reimbursement claims. Instead of reviewing every claim individually, the department would review at least 20% of districts each year so every district is reviewed at least once every five years, with additional random or targeted reviews based on risk indicators, anomalies, prior findings, or other department criteria. Members discussed whether the audit sample should be district-based or student-based, and whether the bill should more specifically define the type of audit and the meaning of “other” criteria. Department witnesses said the current process already involves confidential information and that the new approach would not worsen privacy concerns; they also said the department would follow federal and state privacy laws and adopt rules to implement the process. Several members supported the bill as a practical first step to improve data collection and eventually expand aid, noting that districts currently do not track lower-cost special education students well. Others raised concerns about the lack of a fiscal note, possible local costs, and whether the new monitoring language gives the department too much discretion. The discussion ended with no vote taken in the excerpt, and members indicated they may need more time to review the final amendment before proceeding.