Transcript Highlights:

• or were you just here for testimony or were you just here for questions?
• Uh, Madam Chair, I have testimony. Perfect.
• provide testimony. provide testimony. All<00:32:27.720> right. All right. All right.
• your testimony, please. your testimony, please.
• Yeah, Madam Chair, members of testimony.

Bills: HF2783, HF2603, HF2846, HF2354, HF1836, HF2713, HF1198, HF1389

Keywords: state government finance, biennial budget, appropriations, Minnesota Management and Budget, Healthy Aging Subcabinet, Office of Healthy Aging, older adults, aging policy, long-term care, caregivers, public health, Medicaid fraud, medical assistance fraud, attorney general subpoena power, fraud enforcement, business filing fraud, Secretary of State, deceptive mailings, consumer protection, certified public accountant

Transcript Highlights:

• as I listen to superintendance testimony as I listen to superintendance testimony it's<00:05:03.560
• committee thank you for your testimony committee thank you for your testimony next<00:52:07.079>
• and you heard some of that testimony and you heard some of that testimony today<01:01:52.920>
• That concludes our public testimony. We'll go into member testimony and member discussion.
• So thank you so much for that testimony.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• This was fully vetted with excellent testimony from the Department of Education that testified. fully
• vetted with excellent testimony from the Department of Education that testified that all of these schools
• , like Senator Hickey said, we need to prepare a couple of hours and we need to be ready to hear testimony
• And we need to be ready to hear testimony from the affected parties and from the Department of Ed.
• We did not have testimony from individuals in the community, nor did we have them come to the table to

Summary: The committee first reviewed a long list of House and Senate bills that were ready to be passed out, then heard a special language subcommittee report. The report recommended do pass on six bills, including SB 63, SB 67, SB 73, HB 1089, HB 1090, and HB 1093, and amendments on 11 others. A motion to pull HB 107 out for separate consideration failed, and the special language report was adopted. The committee then took up the Revenue Stabilization Law and schedule. Staff explained the schedule’s differences from the governor’s balanced budget proposal and described several fund transfers, including $100 million for Medicaid sustainability, $70 million for the Arkansas Children’s Educational Freedom account, $43.7 million for the general discretionary majority vote set-aside, $5 million for the motor vehicle set-aside, and two $150 million transfers related to the Quick Action Closing Fund and public highway improvements. Members asked for clarification on allocations, and the committee adopted the amendment and passed both House Bill 1100 and Senate Bill 75 as amended. Representative McClendon then presented a bill to support expansion of the Bella Vista Veterans Wall of Honor, but withdrew it, saying he would seek other funding sources. The committee then moved through the remaining captioned bills, including House Bills 105, 107, 1008, 1022, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1051, 1052, 1064, 1066, 1068, 1089, 1090, and 1093, and Senate Bills 3, 4, 7, 8, 15, 20, 21, 30, 31, 36, 41, 43, 58, 63, 67, and 77, generally passing them with little or no discussion, some as amended. The chair announced that all prior holds had been released and said the next Joint Budget Committee meeting would be Tuesday for peer issues only, then adjourned the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• THAT DOES IT FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY. NUMBERS, WE ARE IN DEBATE.
• WE WILL GO AHEAD AND MOVE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. TOM PARKER IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
• THAT DOES IT FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY. WE ARE IN DEBATE.
• SEEING NONE, WE WILL MOVE TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY. I APOLOGIZE AHEAD OF TIME. I DIDN'T DO THAT WELL.
• SEEING NONE WE WILL MOVE TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY. A COUPLE OF SPEAKER FORMS.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That's my testimony. Over.
• That's my testimony. Over.
• That's my testimony. Over.
• And I heard this at a prior testimony And I heard this at a prior testimony last<01:48:40.159>
• going to be the basis of my testimony. going to be the basis of my testimony.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll start our testimony their chairs.
• uh testimony uh testimony on<00:33:06.840> and<00:33:07.120> and<00:33:07.400>
• Cook in his testimony, referenced by Mr.
• So, with that, Madam Chair, I'll conclude my testimony.
• So, with that, Madam Chair, I'll conclude my testimony.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair Kagel thanked her for the testimony.
• <00:25:14.400> Um, for your testimony. Um, for your testimony.
• Please proceed with your testimony.<00:34:02.679> Thank<00:34:02.880> you. testimony.
• you for your testimony, uh Mayor Case. you for your testimony, uh Mayor Case.
• Please proceed with your testimony. >> Madam Chair, Mr.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• of testimony. Welcome to the committee. of testimony. Welcome to the committee.
• Ash, if you could take two minutes to provide your testimony.
• with your testimony, that would be<00:25:46.159> great.
• And welcome to two minutes of testimony. And welcome to the<00:25:50.400> committee.
• My name is Linda Barera, and um I will be reading Briana Banks's testimony.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony. Appreciate it.
• uh thank you again for your testimony uh thank you again for your testimony today.<00:41:47.240>
• Thank you very present your testimony. Thank you very much.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Those providing testimony will be given specific time limits, which must be strictly observed.
• Those providing testimony<00:01:08.799> will<00:01:09.040> be<00:01:09.200> given
• ><00:01:09.520> specific<00:01:10.080> time testimony will be given specific time testimony
• Chair, testifier, please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
• Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony. >> Thank you very much.

Bills: HF3676, HF2959, HF3233

Keywords: Safe at Home, address confidentiality, domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, harassment, victim privacy, survivor protection, confidential address, protected address, secret address, identity protection, residential confidentiality, program participant, nondiscrimination, court disclosure, protective order, service of process, driver's license, state ID

Transcript Highlights:

• Due to time constraints, we'll be limiting the testimony to two minutes.
• Boyd, for your powerful testimony.
• Boy, for your powerful testimony.
• Thank you so much for your powerful testimony. I'd like to welcome Mr.
• Thank you for your very powerful testimony today.

Summary: The Assembly Higher Education Committee held an oversight hearing on how federal actions are affecting California higher education, with opening remarks from the chair and members emphasizing the importance of state-federal shared governance and the need to protect access, affordability, and campus diversity. The first panel included leaders from the CSU, University of the Pacific, California Community Colleges, and UC, who described broad impacts from federal grant terminations, changes to student aid, loan limits, visa and immigration policy, and proposed reductions to research support. Testimony focused on the elimination of Grad PLUS loans, caps on Parent PLUS and Pell-related changes, the loss or suspension of hundreds of grants, and the resulting harm to student support services, research, workforce pipelines, food assistance, and health care training. UC and CSU representatives warned of major losses in research funding, indirect cost reimbursement, and student opportunities, while community college leaders highlighted uncertainty around federal grants and the need to maintain services for low-income, first-generation, undocumented, and other vulnerable students. Committee members asked how the state could respond, including through intersegmental partnerships, dual enrollment, transfer pathways, and support for basic needs and nutrition programs. Witnesses said California could help by sustaining financial aid, protecting minority-serving institution programs, and investing in research, housing, and workforce development. Several speakers stressed that federal changes were creating instability for students and campuses, and that the effects would likely be long-lasting, especially in health care, teaching, STEM, and social work pipelines. A second panel then focused on equitable access. The California Student Aid Commission described state efforts such as the $3.9 billion investment in aid programs, the Cal Grant system, the Dream Act, and possible reforms to better serve adult learners, foster youth, undocumented students, and students with dependents. The Los Angeles Community College District reported that federal cuts and policy shifts are discouraging students from applying for aid, threatening TRIO and MSI/HSI-funded services, and reducing support for basic needs, counseling, and workforce programs. The Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities and the CSU Academic Senate echoed concerns about FAFSA confusion, international student restrictions, grant losses, and the erosion of equity-focused programs. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and discussed possible state responses.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair to have her give a bit of testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• Sorry, proceed with any testimony that you have. Thank you.
• testimony. Thank you, Senator Friends. testimony. Thank you, Senator Friends.
• Please give your testimony. Thank you.
• . please give your testimony.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We will be limiting testimony to 2 minutes per witness.
• Chairman: Appreciate your testimony. Representative Morgan: Thank you.
• So anyway, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you for being here.
• Chairman Dean: Appreciate your testimony, and you said two different things.
• Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair calls Craig Island. Chairman Dean: Welcome back.

Transcript Highlights:

• Testimony will be limited to four minutes in support and four minutes in opposition.
• Testimony will be limited to four minutes in support and four minutes in opposition.
• Okay, we'll go ahead and open it up for testimony in support. Go ahead and approach the microphone.
• Let's move to opposition testimony. Is there a primary opposition witness? I don't think so.
• I just want to be clear: based on the opposition testimony, do you have a plan or a commitment to work

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy met as a subcommittee because a quorum was not present, and the chair announced 16 measures on the agenda, nine of them on consent. The committee then took up AB 1016 by Assemblymember Gonzalez, which would create a five-year pilot program allowing certain counties with geothermal elements in their general plans to locally permit geothermal plants up to 150 net megawatts through 2030. The author and Imperial County representatives argued the bill would streamline a duplicative permitting process, support local control, and bring jobs, tax revenue, and clean baseload energy development to Imperial County, which they described as facing high unemployment and poverty and having significant geothermal potential. Supporters included Imperial County officials, Rural County Representatives of California, Independent Energy Producers, and local community representatives. They emphasized the county’s long history of geothermal permitting, its planning efforts, and the economic benefits of projects that could support schools, health care, and community colleges. Opposition came from labor organizations including the California State Pipe Trades Council, Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, California Coalition of Utility Employees, State Association of Electrical Workers, and State Building Trades. Their main concern was that shifting permitting from the California Energy Commission to local governments could remove the skilled-and-trained workforce requirement that currently applies to CEC-permitted projects. Committee members asked about that labor issue, and the author said he intended to work with the opposition coalition to ensure local workers are prioritized and that projects use skilled, trained, California-licensed labor. The discussion ended with the bill still under consideration; no vote was taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• SEEING NONE, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC TESTIMONY? YES, THERE IS. JASON WHEN WAIVES TIME IN SUPPORT.
• IS THERE PUBLIC TESTIMONY? WE DO HAVE JASON HARRELL FROM FI CPA IN SUPPORT.
• SEEING NONE, IS THERE PUBLIC TESTIMONY? ANY DEBATE? ANY OBJECTION? SO THAT AMENDMENT ADOPTED.
• SEEING NONE, IS THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. WE DO HAVE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. ALL RIGHT.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• here today, and she has submitted the testimony to the committee by email.
• Specifically, first, we have heard testimony that the bill should be limited to...
• Written testimony.
• You can submit your testimony in writing. You can submit your testimony in writing.
• Let me take the vote, and then I could take your testimony.

Keywords: 1146, all

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee met on June 28, 2026 and considered a long list of budget and policy bills, reporting many of them out of committee, often with amendments. Early measures included AB 2550 on continued dependent health coverage for certain adults with disabilities, AB 4794 allowing tax data sharing with the New Jersey Innovation Authority and Secure Choice Savings Board, and AB 3381/SB 1493 updating occupational therapy licensure requirements. The committee also advanced AB 4014, creating a social media research center at a public four-year institution, though one member opposed it as unnecessary spending given existing research on social media harms. Another bill, AB 5048/SB 1281, would ban certain apparel and diaper products with intentionally added PFAS; some members opposed it over safety and cost concerns, especially for firefighter gear, but it was reported. The committee also moved AB 383, which promotes volunteerism to help FamilyCare and SNAP recipients meet eligibility requirements, and AB 4357, extending telehealth pay parity, though one member objected to parity between telehealth and in-person care. The committee then took up several energy, environmental, and housing-related bills. AB 5188, the Advanced Grid Technologies Act, was released despite opposition from some members and labor interests. AB 2524 would let dual-use solar projects participate in community solar, and AB 5236 would strengthen pediatric psychiatry and behavioral health services; both were reported. AB 5348, allowing temporary use of open-space and related funds for certain municipalities, drew sharp criticism as a diversion of preservation money to fill budget holes, but passed. AB 5280 returned unexpended county appropriations to Hudson County and authorized supplemental operating aid; it also passed despite objections about prior bidding violations. AB 5347 provided certain motor vehicle-related funding to municipalities and was reported, as was AB 5334/SB 4423, appropriating Green Acres and CBT revenues for local open space and park projects. A major portion of the meeting focused on tax and business-related bills. AB 5329 increased the child tax credit for 2026-2028, with testimony urging that the expansion be made permanent; it was reported. AB 3899, the General Contractor Licensing Act, also passed. AB 5310/SB 4406 clarified sentencing under certain circumstances and was reported. AB 5330, allowing temporary transfers in the pension system, drew testimony from NJEA warning that the State Health Benefits Program was in crisis and asking for a longer repayment period to avoid rate spikes; the bill was still reported. AB 1326 created a higher education governance and funding task force and was amended to add a Talmudic institution or theological seminary representative. Later, AB 5333/SB 4424 appropriated additional Green Acres and CBT funds for recreation and conservation projects and was reported. The committee also advanced several business and alcohol-related measures, including AB 5235 establishing the School-Based Partnership for Access and Resilience for Kids program, AB 5325 reducing business formation fees, AB 4836/SB 2368 on portable solar devices, AB 4881 establishing an advanced nuclear energy procurement program, AB 3974/SB 3183 revising renewable energy incentive and solar interconnection rules, AB 4013 creating a social media research center focused on addictive behavior, AB 5225 making temporary alcohol beverage provisions permanent, and AB 5295 revising alcoholic beverage licensing laws. The most contentious debate came on AB 4085, the Fair Price Protection Act, which would restrict “surveillance pricing” and regulate grocery pricing practices. Consumer advocates supported the bill as a protection against individualized pricing, while retailers and chambers of commerce argued the language was too broad and could undermine loyalty programs, discounts, and electronic shelf labels. Despite those objections, the committee voted to report the bill after amendments. Finally, AB 4530/SB 3739 on EV supply equipment standards was reported, and AB 5322 imposing a temporary cap on net operating loss deductions under the corporate business tax sparked strong opposition from business groups and a policy debate over whether legitimate losses and investment-related deductions should be limited; the bill was still moved out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• For example, witness testimony as to the mechanism of the accident.
• You heard testimony here today about fraud.
• You heard testimony about doctors and testimony and one of the facts of the case and all that kind of
• Thank you so much for your testimony.” “So the board is clear.
• Thank you so much for your testimony, and I’ll read these cards in.

Summary: The committee first voluntarily deferred House Bills 460 and 561, then took up House Bill 1101 on workers’ compensation. The sponsor said the bill would define maximum medical improvement, adjust fraud provisions, shorten temporary total disability and supplemental earnings benefit periods, and revise vocational rehabilitation rules; an amendment removed proposed age-based termination language for benefits. Business groups including LABI supported the bill as a way to reduce Louisiana’s comparatively high indemnity costs and align the state with regional norms, while injured-worker advocates and attorneys strongly opposed it, arguing it would cut benefits, shift medical and disability decisions away from treating physicians and judges, broaden fraud too far, and potentially push costs onto public programs. After debate, the committee voted to report HB 1101 with amendments. House Bill 282 was voluntarily deferred. House Bill 293, which would add sexual orientation and gender identity to Louisiana employment discrimination protections, drew generally supportive testimony from the sponsor and supporters, with some members raising questions about religious exemptions and federal law. The committee ultimately voted against reporting HB 293 favorably. House Bill 390, providing unpaid leave protections for domestic abuse survivors at larger employers, was presented as a tool for survivors, but the committee split 6-6 on a motion to report it favorably; the tie resulted in the bill being voluntarily deferred. The committee then heard House Bill 456, which would expand workers’ compensation petition requirements and allow employers or payers broader access to file disputed claims and seek discovery. Supporters argued employers currently lack a practical way to obtain records and challenge claims without first cutting off benefits, while opponents said the bill would revive a rejected 2012 approach, increase litigation, and undermine the no-fault workers’ compensation bargain. The discussion centered on whether the bill would preserve benefits while allowing discovery or instead encourage more disputes and penalties. The transcript ends with testimony still underway on HB 456, with no final vote shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your testimony.
• Okay, thank you very much for your testimony.
• thank you very much for your testimony. thank you very much for your testimony.
• >> Thank you very much for your testimony.
• <00:30:53.600> Any Thank you so much for testimony. Any Thank you so much for testimony.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 1669, adopting the DE2 amendment, which was described as the bill itself. The amended bill would expand Minnesota’s sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit by increasing annual allocations, extending the sunset date from 2030 to 2035, adding an extra credit for lower-carbon fuels, and adding environmental and other qualifying requirements. The chair noted the amendment aligned the bill with the governor’s proposal, and the amendment was approved on a voice vote. Testimony was overwhelmingly supportive. Commissioner Tom Peterson of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture backed the bill as a way to preserve Minnesota’s leadership in SAF, attract private investment, and keep crop and timber feedstocks processed in-state. Farmers and agricultural groups, including Minnesota Farmers Union and Minnesota Farm Bureau, said SAF could create new domestic markets for crops such as corn, soybeans, winter camelina, and pennycress while improving farm income and supporting climate-smart practices. Forestry representatives argued that wood waste and forest residue could be turned into SAF, improving forest health and reducing wildfire risk. Environmental and clean-energy groups also supported the bill, emphasizing the added guardrails. The Minnesota Environmental Partnership, Friends of the Mississippi River, and Fresh Energy said the amendments would better protect water quality, soil health, biodiversity, and climate outcomes by favoring lower-carbon SAF and limiting harmful land-use change. University of Minnesota Forever Green representatives said winter-hardy crops could scale over time, and they pointed to ongoing commercialization work and a 1 Million Acre Scaling Study. Labor and construction groups said the bill would support major infrastructure investment and create long-term jobs, with testimony citing the first Minnesota SAF facility already announced and the potential for multiple hubs statewide. No vote on final passage was taken in the portion provided, but the committee heard extensive supportive testimony and questions focused on scalability, infrastructure, and how the credit would accelerate SAF development in Minnesota.

Transcript Highlights:

• now move to testimony from the public. now move to testimony from the public.
• Uh, before I get into my testimony, if I could just take a minute, Mr. Chairman.
• >> See, you you show up with your testimony >> See, you you show up with your testimony
• Uh we'll now move to public testimony. Uh we'll now move to public testimony.
• Seeing none, I'll close public testimony and move on to member discussion.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 3603, and Representative Olson first offered and had adopted an A1 author’s amendment. Olson then explained that the bill would direct the Commissioner of Children, Youth and Families to seek a USDA waiver allowing Minnesota to bar SNAP purchases of items subject to state sales tax, such as prepared foods, chips, soft drinks, and candy. He argued the goal was to promote healthier nutrition, noted that other states have similar waivers, and said the change could help Minnesota qualify for significant federal rural health care funding. Public testimony was divided. Patrick Garofalo of the Minnesota Grocers Association opposed the bill, saying SNAP is a supplemental program and that the proposal would be difficult to administer at retail stores, create confusion, and expose retailers to serious penalties for mistakes. He argued the state tax code is not a nutrition standard and pointed out inconsistencies, such as some candy-like products still being taxable or some healthy items being treated as prepared food. Will Hagen of Minnesota Retailers also opposed the bill, warning it would require costly point-of-sale changes, retraining, and would turn store employees into enforcers while creating cross-border shopping problems. Matt Schmidt of the American First Policy Institute supported the concept, saying SNAP should emphasize nutrition and that restricting unhealthy purchases would reduce taxpayer subsidies for junk food and soda. Members then debated the bill’s logic and practicality, including questions about which snacks would or would not be allowed under the tax-based standard. Representative Sencer-Mura offered an H2 amendment, framed as applying the same restrictions to legislators’ own per diem spending; Representative Hansen responded that the comparison was not equivalent and raised concerns about household circumstances and accessibility. The H2 amendment was put to a vote and did not prevail. The committee then continued member discussion on the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• And your testimony is extremely helpful. We do appreciate you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• And your testimony is extremely helpful. We do appreciate you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• You just heard testimony.”
• “You just heard testimony somebody was transferred to 20 group homes, 20 group homes.
• Our testimony. I have Janelle Jones. Ms.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee opened with remarks framing the meeting as a bipartisan effort to improve Arizona’s child welfare system, especially DCS oversight, accountability, and child safety. The chair said the committee would focus on reforms based on Auditor General findings and hear bills and testimony from youth, advocates, foster parents, and attorneys. Roll was taken, and the committee then began considering several child-welfare bills. HB 2611, dealing with group foster home safety, employee drug screening, resident rights, training, and advocates in congregate care, drew extensive testimony. Supporters, including current and former foster youth, described bullying, unsafe staff behavior, drug use in homes, trafficking concerns, and the need for posted rights, mental health services, and stronger accountability. The sponsor and members discussed an amendment that would require quarterly drug-screening results to be submitted, require removal from child contact pending confirmatory testing after a positive result, and give the DCS director more discretion. The amendment was adopted, and HB 2611 as amended received a do-pass recommendation by a 5-1 vote, with some members voting present or expressing procedural concerns but supporting further work on the bill. HB 2035, which expands kinship placement requirements by adding extended family members to search and notification duties and presuming kinship placement is in the child’s best interest, also received substantial testimony. Advocates argued kinship care reduces trauma and improves stability, while several witnesses described cases where children were not placed with available relatives and instead ended up in congregate care. The committee discussed whether the bill duplicated existing law and whether DCS was already required to search for kin; the sponsor said the bill strengthens existing policy and adds written documentation requirements. HB 2035 was given a do-pass recommendation by a 4-2 vote. The committee then heard HB 4049, which would authorize DCS to employ legal counsel or incur legal expenses, along with an amendment that would require the Attorney General or appointed counsel to represent the state’s interests independently in certain cases and not be subject to DCS retaliation for taking a different position. Testimony split between those who argued the current structure creates a conflict of interest and allows DCS narratives to go unchallenged, and those who said the AG’s office already has separate divisions and that keeping representation centralized preserves consistency and oversight. Discussion continued on whether the current system is structurally broken and where counsel would be housed if the arrangement changed; the transcript ends while that debate is ongoing, without a recorded final vote on HB 4049.