Transcript Highlights:

• countable income below 138% of the federal poverty level to qualify for Medi-Cal, but again, the asset test
• cost for seniors up to 138% of the federal poverty level, as well as the elimination of the asset test
• As well as the elimination of the asset test that was previously used to determine Medi-Cal eligibility
• Obviously, I was so glad to see the asset test being eliminated.
• The greatest test of whether a society is doing its job correctly is how it's treating young people and

Summary: The joint Assembly Budget Subcommittee hearing focused first on long-term services and supports for older adults, especially the “forgotten/overlooked middle” who earn too much for Medi-Cal but cannot afford private long-term care. Administration witnesses from DHCS, the Department of Aging, and Social Services described Medicare’s limited long-term care coverage, Medi-Cal’s role, the elimination of the Medi-Cal asset test, and ongoing state studies and listening sessions on financing options. Testimony from advocates and researchers emphasized rising homelessness among older adults, the need for better navigation and coordination across health, aging, housing, and social service systems, and short-term policy steps such as share-of-cost reform, housing stability supports, and protecting home- and community-based services. Members highlighted the need for a coordinated, no-wrong-door approach and asked for the most impactful budget investments to address affordability and homelessness risk. The second major topic was the Community-Based Adult Services (CBAS) program. CDA reported that CBAS helps participants remain in the community, that 304 centers operate statewide serving about 42,000 people, and that demand is stable but access gaps remain in some regions. DHCS explained that a 2024 rate increase authorized by SB 159 became inoperative after Proposition 35, and that a separate 10% rate change on the fee schedule was the result of a DHCS system error; the department said it would not require recoupment, though managed care plans may act under their contracts. CBAS providers and advocates warned that reimbursement rates have not kept pace with costs, that several centers have closed, and that clawbacks could trigger more closures. They requested $74.8 million ongoing General Fund to close part of the rate gap and preserve the program, while members expressed concern about closures and the cost savings of keeping people out of more expensive institutional care. The hearing then moved to In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) and statewide collective bargaining. CDSS reviewed provider recruitment and retention efforts, including electronic timesheets, direct deposit, and the now-completed IHSS Career Pathways program, which trained more than 59,000 providers. CDSS also summarized its AB 102 workgroup report on statewide versus regional bargaining, saying the final report would be sent to the Legislature soon and that statewide bargaining appeared more viable than regional bargaining, though it would require clear statutory scope and major fiscal changes. The department estimated that each $1 per hour statewide wage increase would cost at least $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion annually. Labor advocates argued that IHSS wages, benefits, and training are too inconsistent across counties and called for statewide bargaining, consumer participation, and ongoing state funding. County representatives supported stronger wages but cautioned that counties need protection from new costs and administrative burdens, and consumer advocates warned that moving bargaining to the state could weaken local consumer control and the program’s consumer-driven structure.

Transcript Highlights:

• The MPCA is now requesting additional and more comprehensive testing by LSC and potentially even some
• requesting additional and more requesting additional and more comprehensive<00:15:25.920> testing
• <00:15:26.720> by<00:15:27.040> LSC<00:15:27.519> and comprehensive testing
• by LSC and comprehensive testing by LSC and potentially<00:15:28.160> even<00:15:28.399> some
• and the testimony bill and and the test and the testimony for<00:31:08.399> Mr.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There are valid<00:08:12.879> time-tested<00:08:13.520> methods<00:08:14.240> to
• <00:08:14.479> exist<00:08:14.800> to valid time-tested methods to exist to valid time-tested
• Uh, next up is Evan Weber for Test Our Hawaii in support.
• Uh, next up is Evan Weber for Test Our Hawaii in support.
• Uh, next up is Evan Weber for Test Our Hawaii in support.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on HB 126, which would change civil asset forfeiture law. The Attorney General’s Office, Honolulu Police Department, and county prosecutors opposed the bill’s proposed SD1, arguing that requiring a criminal conviction and changing how forfeiture proceeds are distributed would weaken or effectively end the tool, create fiscal and law enforcement problems, and make it harder to address organized crime or cases where an owner cannot be identified. The Public Defender’s Office, Community Alliance on Prisons, Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii, and other supporters argued the measure would improve transparency and accountability, protect property rights, and reduce abuses that disproportionately affect low-income people. The chair questioned law enforcement about fairness, storage of seized property, and access to counsel, and the discussion focused heavily on whether forfeiture should depend on a conviction. No vote was taken. The committee then heard HB 280, which would make the Community Outreach Court permanent and appropriate funds for it as a division of the First Circuit district court. The Department of the Attorney General and Judiciary supported the concept and described the court’s success in helping people resolve cases, clear license stoppers, recall bench warrants, and access services, but suggested amendments to remove the Attorney General from the bill’s definition and funding mechanism. The Public Defender, Department of Human Services, mental health and substance use advocates, neighborhood and community groups, and others strongly supported the bill, emphasizing its benefits for people facing housing instability, behavioral health issues, and transportation barriers. No opposition was voiced, and no vote was taken. The committee also heard HB 370, which would increase partial public campaign financing for elective offices. The Campaign Spending Commission supported the original bill and asked the committee to restore the original percentage amounts, keep the proposed funding increases, and reinstate funding for two additional full-time staff positions. Supporters said the public financing system has not kept pace with inflation and needs modernization to be viable; a few testifiers opposed the measure. The committee reported 30 in support, two opposed, and one comment, and then moved on without a vote. Finally, HB 371 was heard, a campaign contribution bill that would bar state and county contractors, grantees, and certain related persons from contributing during the contract period. The Campaign Spending Commission said the bill is intended to address pay-to-play concerns and false-name contributions, while the State Procurement Office raised concerns about the burden of requiring agencies to provide contract information for all contracts regardless of dollar value. The testimony ended with the commission saying it was working with procurement and the Attorney General on implementation details; no vote was taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Sorry, don't see you on the test. Thank you.
• Sorry, don't see you on the test. Thank you. Laura Brier from Kawaih?
• Sorry, don't see you on the test. Thank you. I did not submit testimony on this bill.
• Sorry, don't see you on the test. Thank you. I did not submit testimony on this bill.
• Sorry, don't see you on the test. Thank you. I did not submit testimony on this bill.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint hearing began with SB 133 on energy, which drew opposition testimony from James Abraham, who said the bill was unnecessary because the Public Utilities Commission had already opened a proceeding to investigate wheeling, including intergovernmental wheeling, and should be allowed to finish its collaborative process. The committees then moved to SB 161 on county permitting and inspection, where several agencies submitted written comments or opposition, while the Grassroots Institute and HCDA-related testimony supported the measure. Members raised concerns about accountability and whether state agencies would report back on projects approved under any permitting exemption, and witnesses suggested annual reporting or amendment language to address that issue. The hearing then turned to SB 232 and SB 588, both related to renewable energy permitting. Testimony on SB 232 was largely supportive, but Rocky Mold of the Hawaii Solar Energy Association said SB 232 was an older version of a bill and that SB 588 was the preferred, updated measure. Members discussed whether the bill should be limited to residential or behind-the-meter customer-sited systems rather than utility-scale projects, and Mold clarified that the proposal was intended for customer-sited systems, not utility-scale facilities. For SB 588, the Department of Land and Natural Resources warned that state or county laws inconsistent with the National Flood Insurance Program could jeopardize flood insurance eligibility and related federal assistance, while Mold argued the bill’s FEMA floodway exemption was needed to avoid blocking solar installations on existing structures. The chair expressed concern about risking federal funding and questioned whether the exemption could be narrowed without defeating the bill’s purpose. SB 412, also on renewable energy, received supportive testimony from the State Energy Office and others. Members questioned whether a single coordinating entity should compile agency assessments, and Mark Glick said the Energy Office could take on that role if given the duty and sufficient staff. The committee then discussed SB 635 on energy efficiency, which would require state agencies to use energy-efficient lighting. Mark Glick testified that much of the work was already underway through benchmarking and related contracts, and a DAGS representative said the state was already assessing 590 buildings over 10,000 square feet, with results expected around 2027. Members suggested amending the bill to require annual status reports so the committees could track progress and avoid duplication. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Like, how will they test? What will that look like?
• you an idea, the full spectrum product that I use for my son, I went home and looked at it for my testing
• That I used for my son, I went home and looked at it for my testing, is 0.42 total milligrams of all
• second: age 21... ...bill originally is exactly what we should be doing right this second: age 21, testing
• Who's going to test for this stuff?

Keywords: 977, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate 1737 would establish a commission to review all aspects of law enforcement's ability to properly test
• Law enforcement's ability to properly test drivers who may be operating under the influence of cannabis
• Unlike alcohol, there is currently no standardized or court-accepted roadside test for cannabis impairment
• an on-the-ground perspective of this legislation, and then Blair has some information about some testing
• And on a side note, May 18th coming up, American Public Works will be sponsoring... some testing that

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused on a range of public safety bills, with especially emotional testimony on the Maggie Hubbard Rental Safety Act, which would require short-term rentals to be inspected for smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and require platforms or agents to verify compliance before listing. Rep. Hadley Luddy, Sen. Julian Cyr, and the Hubbard and Waldron families described the fatal Airbnb fire that killed Shannon Hubbard and her daughter Maggie in New York, saying the deaths were preventable and that the bill would save lives. Committee members expressed sympathy and support for the families’ efforts to turn their loss into legislation. The committee also heard testimony on a proposed peace officer oath (S. 1680), described by Sen. Lydia Edwards as a binding ethical standard tied to certification and recertification, with discipline and annual reporting to promote accountability and de-escalation. Rep. Tom Walsh testified for a bill requiring hotel and motel workers to be trained to recognize human trafficking and to post hotline signage, and later testimony supported a school safety data grant program to provide first responders with standardized, up-to-date school maps for emergencies. Another major topic was a bill to allow temporary door-locking devices in public buildings; supporters said the devices are removable, do not alter fire code, and could improve lockdown response during active shooter events. Additional bills discussed included measures to transfer the Office of Emergency Medical Services to EOPSS, increase penalties for unlicensed hood-system cleaning, expand membership on the Massachusetts Fire Training Council, and strengthen confidentiality for peer support and critical incident stress debriefings. Firefighters and fire chiefs also supported a bill to tighten penalties for violations of hot-work regulations, citing the 2014 Beacon Street fire that killed Lt. Walsh and Firefighter Kennedy. Law enforcement groups backed a package including a Blue Star plate and Blue Alert system for fallen officers’ families, stronger move-over penalties, and a memorial fund, while the State Police Association supported the move-over provisions but asked for further work on the special state police officer bill before final action. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is tested to some degree, but absolutely that is heard in terms of, and also to Senator Gabaldon's
• And so this is why we’ve got to ground test stuff with people who are actually making these decisions
• about the increase in our workload, just as related to HR1, and our swift implementation of the 25% test
• , which is allowing us... ...and our swift implementation of the 25% test, which is allowing us to award
• And so with the increase of the, over the reduction of the 25% test, while we're doing more volume at

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And the oath that I took was not, 'I, Carlos Guillermo Smith, swear to test illegal theory here in the
• I would venture to say that I would fare okay in a standardized test of the 90 pages released today,
• I would do better on the test than you would. We're not prepared. Senator Polsky?
• And until you tell me different, because no test has been done, that's where I'm going to stand.
• . ...this state, and they are looking at us to ask us the question: are we going to continue this testing

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituted with House Bill 1D, both establishing Florida’s congressional districts. The sponsor, Senator Gates, explained that the Governor had transmitted a proposed redistricting plan on short notice and argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is legally permissible, citing population growth and the Governor’s view that race-based provisions in the Fair Districts Amendment are unconstitutional. He repeatedly said the Legislature was not being asked to prove the Governor’s legal theory, only to consider the proposal, and noted that no amendments were offered. A lengthy question-and-answer period followed, with senators raising concerns about the rushed process, lack of statewide public hearings, and the map’s effects on minority communities, compactness, communities of interest, and partisan fairness. Senators questioned whether the map cracked Latino and Black communities, whether partisan data was used, whether the Governor’s office had outside consultants, and whether the plan complied with the Florida Constitution, the Fair Districts Amendment, and the Voting Rights Act. Gates generally deferred on legal conclusions, said the Governor’s representatives had testified the map was race-neutral and used political data only as one factor, and emphasized that any constitutional challenge would be for the courts. After a motion to temporarily postpone failed by a recorded vote of 12 yeas to 23 nays, the Senate continued debate. Senators Rouson, Bernard, and others spoke in opposition, arguing the proposal was rushed, partisan, and harmful to communities of interest and minority voting power. Gates maintained that the Governor had a constitutional prerogative to propose the map and that the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend it. The House companion bill was then substituted for the Senate bill, read a third time, and the chamber moved into final debate on the congressional redistricting plan.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've heard about compactness tests, the Reock ratio, convex hull, PULSE by Popper scores, and these
• And the oath that I took was not, I, Carlos Guillermo Smith, swear to test illegal theory here in the
• I would venture to say that I would fare okay in a standardized test of the 90 pages released today,
• I would do better on the test than you would. We're not prepared. Senator Polsky?
• And until you tell me different, because no test has been done, that's where I'm going to stand.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session with an opening prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then moved to the special order calendar to consider congressional redistricting legislation, beginning with Senate Bill 8D and then substituting the identical House Bill 1D. The bill would establish Florida’s congressional districts. Senator Gaetz, presenting the measure, said the Governor had proposed the map to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts, and argued that mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible and has occurred before in Florida and other states. He repeatedly said the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal, but that the Governor had the prerogative to propose it. The floor debate focused heavily on the legality and timing of the map, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Louisiana redistricting decision was announced during the session. Several senators, including Rouson, Sharief, Smith, Polsky, Arrington, Bracy Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and Berman, questioned whether the map complied with the Florida Constitution’s Fair Districts Amendment, the Voting Rights Act, and equal protection principles. They raised concerns about the short notice, lack of statewide public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony from the Governor’s representatives, the claimed severability of the Fair Districts Amendment, and the impact on minority communities and communities of interest. Gaetz generally declined to offer legal opinions, saying those issues would ultimately be for the courts, but he relayed the Governor’s position that race-based provisions in the Fair Districts Amendment are unconstitutional and that the proposed map is race-neutral and compact. Members also debated whether the map’s population data and compactness scores justified the district lines, with critics arguing that the plan cracked and split communities in places such as Central Florida, Tampa Bay, and South Florida. Gaetz said the Governor’s office relied on 2020 census data plus updated population estimates from the Office of Economic and Demographic Research and the American Community Survey, and that the mapmaker said he drew the map himself without outside consultants. After questions concluded, the Senate adopted a motion to substitute HB 1D for SB 8D, read the bill a third time, and proceeded to debate the House bill. The transcript ends during debate, with no final vote on passage shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the oath that I took was not, 'I, Carlos Guillermo Smith, swear to test illegal theory here in the
• I would venture to say that I would fare okay in a standardized test of the 90 pages released today,
• I would do better on the test than you would. We're not prepared. Senator Polsky?
• And until you tell me different, because no test has been done, that's where I'm going to stand.
• . ...this state, and they are looking at us to ask us the question: Are we going to continue this testing

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D / House Bill 1D, which would establish Florida’s congressional districts. The sponsor, Sen. Gates, explained that the Governor had transmitted a redistricting plan two days earlier and argued that mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible, citing population growth and the Governor’s view that race-based districting is unconstitutional. Much of the floor time was spent in extended questioning about the process, the lack of public hearings compared with prior redistricting cycles, the use of population estimates from the Census/EDR/ACS, compactness scores, and whether the Governor’s office used partisan data or outside consultants. Gates repeatedly said he was relaying the Governor’s proposal and legal theory rather than offering his own legal opinion, and he said any constitutional challenge would be for the courts. A major portion of the debate focused on the U.S. Supreme Court’s newly issued Calais decision and its implications for the Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators questioned whether the decision struck down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, whether it affected Florida’s constitutional ban on partisan gerrymandering, and whether the Legislature should postpone action to review the ruling. A motion to temporarily postpone the bill failed by voice vote and then by recorded vote, 12 yeas to 23 nays. Senators also raised concerns that the proposed map cracked minority communities, including Latino and Black populations in Central Florida and Tampa Bay, and that it would produce a heavily Republican-leaning map despite the state’s voter registration mix. After debate on the Senate bill, the chamber substituted the identical House companion bill, read it a third time, and proceeded to final debate. Opponents argued the map was an illegal partisan gerrymander, was based on assumptions rather than verified data, and would likely lead to litigation. Supporters maintained that the Governor had authority to propose a congressional map, that the plan was race-neutral, and that the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend it. The transcript ends during continued debate on House Bill 1D, with no final vote shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the oath that I took was not, 'I, Carlos Guillermo Smith, swear to test illegal theory here in the
• I would venture to say that I would fare okay in a standardized test of the 90 pages released today,
• I would do better on the test than you would. We're not prepared. Senator Polsky?
• And until you tell me different, because no test has been done, that's where I'm going to stand.
• The state is looking at us to ask us the question: Are we going to continue this testing of the breaking

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And the oath that I took was not, 'I, Carlos Guillermo Smith, swear to test illegal theory here in the
• I would venture to say that I would fare okay in a standardized test of the 90 pages released today,
• I would do better on the test than you would. We're not prepared. Senator Polsky?
• And until you tell me different, because no test has been done, that's where I'm going to stand.
• this state, and they are looking at us to ask us. ...the question: are we going to continue this testing

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• clear legislation, particularly requirements on products to be listed on the nationally recognized testing
• Clear legislation requiring products to be listed on a nationally recognized testing laboratory standard
• clear legislation, particularly requirements on products to be listed on the nationally recognized testing
• standard that we honestly view as a pretty conservative standard, but they set it after really rigorous testing
• Conservative standard, but they set it after really rigorous testing, and it sets requirements that will

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They will remain in place under fully approved and tested alternative legal statutes, and they have been
• tested for a long time.
• It's already time-tested and approved.
• :13:36.480> It's<01:13:36.800> already<01:13:37.120> time-t<01:13:37.440> tested
• It's already time-t tested necessary. It's already time-t tested and<01:13:38.000> approved.

Keywords: Presidential address to the Joint Session of the United States Congress on Tuesday, February 24, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Test one, two, test one. Position one test. Test one, two. Position two. Position two test.
• We're testing every mic now. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Summary: The joint Assembly Higher Education and Budget Subcommittee hearing focused on the future of the California State University system, with opening remarks emphasizing CSU’s major role in California’s economy, workforce, and degree production. Chairs and members said the hearing was intended to inform 2026 budget decisions and to examine three main issues: declining enrollment at some campuses, cost controls and possible consolidation, and oversight of recent state investments at campuses such as Humboldt and Sonoma. The meeting was briefly delayed by microphone and sound problems before reconvening. The first panel featured CSU Academic Senate Chair Dr. Elizabeth Boyd and Cal State Student Association Vice President Katie Karam. Boyd urged the Legislature to protect academic freedom, strengthen faculty governance, provide stable ongoing funding, end unfunded mandates, support student food and housing security, fund flexible course schedules, improve transfer systems such as ASSIST, avoid over-centralizing academic programs, protect immigrant students, and expand intersegmental collaboration. Karam said students are feeling the effects of budget shortfalls through fewer course sections, reduced advising and services, longer time to degree, and tuition pressure, and she called for transparency, meaningful student involvement in budget decisions, and sustained state investment rather than cuts that harm the student experience. The second panel covered enrollment management and included CSU Chancellor’s Office and campus administrators from Chico State, Cal State L.A., and San Diego State. Dr. Delcy Perez said CSU Forward and the new systemwide enrollment plan are aimed at expanding access, aligning programs with workforce needs, and increasing resident enrollment; she reported systemwide enrollment gains and strong application numbers, including a direct-admissions pilot that expanded from Riverside to more campuses. Campus representatives described local recruitment and retention strategies, including early outreach to high school students, community college partnerships, guaranteed admission programs, and expanded advising and student support. San Diego State highlighted record enrollment and high demand, while Cal State L.A. described efforts to recover from impaction and rebuild enrollment. Members pressed CSU officials on the accuracy of enrollment data, the gap between funded targets and actual enrollment, and the system’s reallocation formula. CSU staff explained that campuses below target will see a 5% ongoing reallocation beginning in 2026-27, with one-time reserve funding also being directed to campuses that can grow, and that fiscal health reviews have been completed for 21 of 22 campuses. Legislators also asked about turnaround plans required by the budget act; CSU said those plans are being developed and will be shared in the spring after campus consultation. No formal votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Testing, okay. Okay, which one's hot mic? Testing. Test, yeah. Are we ready?
• in the affordable housing space have been advocating for for many years is a reduction of this 50% test
• in the affordable housing space have been advocating for for many years is a reduction of this 50% test
• And so you can imagine with the 25% test now, this could be as much as 30,000 units a year instead of

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Housing Finance and Affordability held its first hearing of 2025 to examine California’s housing finance system, with opening remarks emphasizing the state’s severe housing shortage, high costs, and the need for practical recommendations to the Legislature and Governor. Co-chairs described the committee as an educational and problem-solving forum focused on financing housing production, first-time homeownership, mixed-income developments, and affordability across the income spectrum. Witnesses from state agencies and the development sector were invited to explain how housing is financed and where the system is breaking down. Panelists from the California Housing Partnership, the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, the Tax Credit Allocation Committee/State Treasurer’s Office, CalHFA, and Related outlined the “capital stack” used to finance affordable housing, stressing that projects typically rely on multiple public and private sources, including federal and state low-income housing tax credits, tax-exempt bonds, state subsidies, local funds, and rental income. Speakers noted that affordable housing rents generally cannot support full project costs without public subsidy, and that recent federal changes—especially the expansion of the 4% and 9% tax credit programs and the reduction of the bond financing threshold for 4% credits—should allow California to finance substantially more units. CalHFA also described its homeownership programs, including My Home, Dream For All, and disaster-related mortgage assistance, as well as its multifamily lending and bond issuance programs. Several witnesses and committee members emphasized that the system remains too complex, too slow, and underfunded. They pointed to the need for more state funding, a housing bond, a permanent funding source, and better coordination among agencies, while also citing recent streamlining efforts such as AB 434’s SuperNOFA, AB 519’s one-stop-shop working group, and the planned California Housing and Homeless Agency reorganization. Members raised concerns about equity, access, missing-middle housing, gender and racial disparities, and whether current programs adequately serve extremely low-income households and those at risk of homelessness. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing; the discussion ended with committee members and witnesses agreeing that both funding and administrative reform are needed to increase production and improve affordability.

Transcript Highlights:

• Pump testing, for example, they need to be done, and sometimes there are delays on both sides to get
• Pump testing, for example, they need to be done, and sometimes there are delays on both sides to get
• Pump testing, for example, they need to be done, and sometimes there are delays on both sides to get
• Pump testing, for example, they need to be done, and sometimes there are delays on both sides to get
• Pump testing, for example, they need to be done, and sometimes there are delays on both sides to get

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The working group on the Omnibus Environment Bill opened with remarks from House and Senate co-chairs describing the agreement as a compromise with wins and tradeoffs for both sides, and thanking nonpartisan staff and administration agencies for helping negotiate the package. Staff then walked through the finance spreadsheet, explaining that the agreement met the group’s general fund target by combining new spending with cancellations and fund shifts across the Pollution Control Agency, DNR, BWSR, Metro Parks, the Zoo, the Science Museum, and other entities. Major fiscal items included PCA operating and permitting-efficiency funding, PFAS-related and mercury-related provisions, county feedlot reductions, closed landfill and remediation fund changes, groundwater and aquatic invasive species fee increases, DNR groundwater and AIS spending, ATV trail grants, watercraft enforcement, and several one-time appropriations and extensions for specific water quality and conservation projects. The policy walk-through covered Article 3’s community grants changes, including a requirement that grants benefit all regions of the state, permission to use some funds for trail maintenance and AIS management, prohibitions on awards to certain entities, and a DNR reporting requirement. Article 4 contained a range of natural resources and environmental policy provisions, including abandoned watercraft seizure and forfeiture authority, higher watercraft AIS surcharges, disabled veterans license fee reductions, a county-based replacement for the shotgun zone, a one-year crossbow extension, a continuous bass season, increased water use permit fees, PFAS sales exemptions for certain products, creation of the Sustainable Foraging Task Force, and a moratorium on DNR foraging rules shortened to July 1, 2026. Article 5 addressed state lands, including an additional Cass County land sale authority. Article 6 focused on PCA permitting reform, requiring more emphasis on complex Tier 2 permits in annual reporting, giving applicants five business days to fix deficiencies, allowing the PCA to decline expedited permitting when it lacks capacity, and letting the agency retain certain fees if expedited permits are completed early. It also included changes to environmental review procedures, feedlot permitting, and EQB rules. During member questions, Senator McEwen asked about the $952,000 ATV trail appropriation and whether projects must have permits before receiving funds; DNR Assistant Commissioner Bob Myers said no project list had been finalized and that grants would go through the existing process, with environmental review and readiness considered, but he said he would need to verify the exact permitting policy and follow up with the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• list of how your student does in this list of how your student does in different<00:22:55.120> testing
• and<00:22:56.240> what<00:22:56.480> we<00:22:56.640> were different testing
• Um and what we were different testing.
• empower parents to be able to sit down with the school and say, "My kid is not doing well on the MCA test
• MCA test. They're not doing well in reading. They're not doing well in math.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• members who may be unfamiliar with registered apprenticeship, registered apprenticeship is a time-tested
• Superintendent Dow, if you'd come up to test stand, please.
• Superintendent Dow, if you'd come up to test stand, please.
• 00:42:25.839> well<00:42:26.599> um<00:42:26.760> I<00:42:26.839> guess test
• fires to answer as well um I guess test fires to answer as well um I guess have<00:42:27.319> the

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• coal plants, and is there enough locally that it could be trucked and utilized to do a full-scale test
• , or is there not even enough to even do a test well or a test EOR project?
• To do a test? No, to do a fuller-scale... ...of what we would need. To do a test?

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee received a compliance and status update on Industrial Commission programs and the Bank of North Dakota. Staff reviewed appropriations and spending for several Industrial Commission funds and grant programs, including lignite research, oil and gas research, clean sustainable energy, grid resiliency, salt cavern analysis, and the new NDSU research and technology park grant. Members discussed the timing of reimbursements, uncommitted balances, and the structure of the pipeline capacity and enhanced oil recovery funding. The Industrial Commission also reported on its administrative budget, grant management system project, and recent leadership transitions across several agencies. Karen Tyler of the Industrial Commission described active grant rounds and the status of major projects. She said the Clean Sustainable Energy Authority approved three projects in its sixth round, with remaining uncommitted cash and loan capacity still available, though no new funding was appropriated this session. She also said the Oil and Gas Research Council approved six enhanced oil recovery projects and expects additional funding after a federal Department of Energy award replaces one project’s state funding. For grid resiliency grants, she said some projects have been funded, some commitments were returned or reallocated, and some DOE funds remain pending. She also updated the committee on the salt cavern business case study, which replaced an earlier larger development proposal, and on the NDSU research park grant, where the nonmatching portion was paid and the matching portion has moved slowly because the match must be in cash. Ron Ness then gave an extended presentation on enhanced oil recovery and North Dakota oil and gas trends. He said production remains steady, but future growth depends on infrastructure, especially gas takeaway and projects like the Bakken East pipeline. He argued that enhanced oil recovery using CO2, natural gas, surfactants, and other methods could extend Bakken production for decades, but that the state needs more CO2 supply, better storage, and updated tax and regulatory incentives. Members asked about lateral lengths, CO2 availability, pipeline impacts, and the role of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and Ness emphasized that the projects are intended to share technical learning across operators and attract follow-on investment. The Bank of North Dakota then presented its compliance report and strategic update. President Don Morgan said the bank’s mission remains to support North Dakota agriculture, commerce, and industry while cooperating with the state’s financial sector. He reviewed the bank’s main business lines: participation lending with community institutions, student loans, disaster lending, mission-based programs, and a new fintech-focused effort. Morgan said deposits are flattening, so the bank is managing balance sheet growth carefully, while still reporting improved net income and strong efficiency. He also introduced Rough Rider Coin as a bank-to-bank payment rail, not a public cryptocurrency, intended to speed and modernize payments within North Dakota’s banking and credit union system. Committee members asked about student loan eligibility, disaster program use, and how credit lines and liquidity would be affected if deposits shrink.