Transcript Highlights:

• We want to hear them all. And we're not going to be voting on policies today.
• Thank you for holding this important hearing. And thank you, Senator?
• Can you hear me now? I don't have to start over, do I? Okay. I don't have to start over, do I?
• So we'll follow up after the hearing as well.
• So we'll follow up after the hearing as well.

Summary: The Senate Select Committee on California’s Wine Industry held its first meeting at Napa Valley College, with opening remarks from Chair Senator Christopher Cabaldon and Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry emphasizing the industry’s importance to California’s economy and communities. The chair said the hearing was intended to gather information and ideas, not to vote on legislation, and to inform future policy, budget, and oversight work. The first panel focused on research and trends, with speakers from Sonoma State, UC Davis, and Terrain describing the industry as facing structural change rather than a temporary downturn. Panelists said California wine is confronting falling consumption, rising costs, labor shortages, housing pressures, tariffs, and competition from imports. Dr. Damien Wilson argued the industry has relied too heavily on premiumization and must focus on attracting new consumers, especially younger generations, through more accessible products, better marketing, and evidence-based decision-making. UC Davis’s Ben Mumpeteet said grapevine disease, extreme weather, and water shortages require long-term research investment and stronger university-industry-state partnerships. Chris Bitter, a wine economist, reported that California wine sales are down about 25% since 2019, that large amounts of grapes have gone unpicked, and that vineyard removals and falling vineyard values reflect a severe supply-demand imbalance; he urged regulatory review, trade competitiveness analysis, and transition support for growers. The committee then heard from industry representatives. Michael Miller of the California Association of Wine Grape Growers described a crisis in which growers can produce high-quality fruit but have no buyers, leading to abandoned or removed vineyards, lost farm revenue, and pressure to restore market balance. Honor Comfort of the Wine Institute presented the Share Wine Co-Lab, an open-access marketing platform designed to help wineries better reach younger consumers through data-driven, collaborative outreach. Jane Lisa Tamayo of Family Winemakers of California discussed the burden on smaller wineries and growers, including regulatory and market challenges. Members and witnesses also discussed changing consumer preferences, the need to adapt to younger drinkers, and concerns about tariffs and trade policy, with the chair warning that broad tariff calls had harmed export markets such as Canada. A final panel addressed tourism, farmworker impacts, and water regulation. Visit Napa Valley’s Lindsay Gallagher said tourism remains strong in Napa but is increasingly dependent on broader destination marketing beyond wine, while international visitation has declined. Sonia DeLuca of the Napa Valley Farmworker Foundation said declining sales and rising costs reduce hours and income for farmworkers and urged targeted relief, wage-loss support, and continued bilingual training. State Water Board official Annalisa Kihar outlined the 2021 Winery General Order for winery process water, saying it was designed to streamline permitting, improve consistency, and reduce burdens on small wineries while protecting water quality; she reported 56 wineries enrolled and 122 under review, and said the board is working with industry partners on technical support and sustainability-based compliance pathways.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I look forward to discussing and hearing from the witnesses on these important issues.
• So I'm really happy to hear some of the research that has been done by our partners...
• And what's nice about our time together here today in this hearing is that we get to hear it from multiple
• But you must talk to superintendents or hear what's happening in other school districts.
• So really appreciate your preparation for this hearing.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm going to call the hearing to order.
• a hearing.
• this a lot today in this hearing.
• So we hear the same information and beliefs that you hear about ongoing negotiations, but we're not on
• And we hear this from our members all the time.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight

Summary: The committee heard testimony on H. 3599, a bill concerning access to landlocked Indian lands in Massachusetts. Witnesses, including members of the Mashpee Wampanoag and Herring Pond communities, described long-standing family land access problems, tax assessments they said treated inaccessible parcels as buildable, and a 2016 Supreme Judicial Court ruling that denied easements by necessity on the basis of tribal custom. They said the bill would restore equal treatment under the law and noted support from the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and conditional support from the Aquinnah Wampanoag Tribe, with possible language changes still under discussion. Members asked about the tax impacts and the status of tribal support, and the chair said the committee would review the conditions and written letters before proceeding. The committee then took up H. 5047, authorizing the Commonwealth to take the Norwood Hospital property by eminent domain so the site can be restored as a hospital. Sponsors Rep. Rogers, Sen. Rush, and Rep. Lynch argued that the closure of Norwood Hospital after the 2020 flood and Steward bankruptcy left a regional medical gap affecting more than a dozen towns, major venues, and emergency responders. They said the site should be returned to a not-for-profit operator, that the state would not be asked to fund the hospital itself, and that eminent domain would allow an independent valuation and move the project forward. Several committee members voiced support, while Rep. Davis asked about timing, cost, and whether negotiations with the current owner could still resolve the issue; sponsors said the private owner had delayed too long and that the state needed a contingency path. Testimony from local officials, chamber representatives, nurses, firefighters, EMS leaders, and residents emphasized the hospital’s regional role, the strain on ambulance and emergency room capacity, longer transport times, boarding at other hospitals, and added costs to towns for ambulances and staffing. Speakers also described personal experiences with delayed care and said the hospital had been profitable before the flood. The Massachusetts Nurses Association and the Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts supported the bill, stressing the need for inpatient beds, emergency preparedness, and a stable regional health care system. The committee also briefly heard and accepted testimony on S. 2922, an Eversource-backed bill authorizing an underground easement at Magazine Beach in Cambridge for the Greater Cambridge Energy Project, before returning to the Norwood Hospital bill; no votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• to hear some of the research that has been done by our partners here today.
• What's nice about our time together here today in this hearing is that we get to hear it from multiple
• I wanted to hear both from Superintendent Sakuma, as well as Mr.
• So, yeah, I want to hear from both of your thoughts on this...
• So I really appreciate your preparation for this hearing.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, and Tourism and the Assembly Education Committee held a joint informational hearing on implementation of Proposition 28, the 2022 voter-approved arts education funding measure. Chairs emphasized the goal of understanding how the roughly $900 million to nearly $1.1 billion annual funding stream is being used, whether it is supplementing rather than supplanting existing arts programs, and what reporting or guidance improvements may be needed. The Legislative Analyst’s Office reviewed the basic structure of Prop 28: funds are distributed 70% by enrollment and 30% by low-income student counts, 80% must generally be spent on staffing, districts may use up to 1% for administration, and annual local reports and audits are required. Members pressed the LAO on waivers, spending timelines, and whether smaller or rural districts face different challenges; the LAO said some waivers have been issued and that districts have three years to spend each allocation, but statewide data remain limited. WestEd, Create California, and the California County Superintendents described early implementation findings and concerns. Their testimony said schools are using funds for arts materials, staffing, expanded instruction, and field trips, and that many respondents saw positive effects on student access and engagement. At the same time, they reported confusion about allowable uses, supplement-versus-supplant rules, and the 80/20 staffing requirement, along with shortages of credentialed arts teachers and uneven access across districts. Create California argued that Prop 28 has generated optimism but also uncertainty, especially for community arts organizations that have seen reduced contracts as districts bring services in-house. County superintendents and researchers called for clearer statutory guidance, stronger technical assistance, better statewide data, and more support for teacher credentialing pathways. District and county officials then described local implementation. Long Beach Unified said it moved quickly to full implementation, using Prop 28 to expand elementary and secondary arts offerings, hire 56 certificated staff and more than 120 classified coaches, and develop a five-year arts strategic plan tied to equity goals. Butte County and other rural representatives said Prop 28 has enabled restored or expanded programs, including arts teachers, theater, and music offerings, but rural districts still struggle to recruit credentialed staff and to make small allocations workable across large distances. The California Music Educators Association echoed those themes, saying members report both new positions and supplies as well as confusion, fear of audit findings, and inconsistent district guidance. Committee members asked about arts definitions, credentialing, rural pooling of funds, and out-of-state teacher credentials; witnesses said media arts are included, multiple credential pathways exist, and recent legislation has eased some out-of-state credential barriers. The hearing ended with public comment beginning after the panel discussions.

Transcript Highlights:

• I will maintain the quorum during today's hearing, as is customary.
• Let's hear some questions. Thank you. Thank you for your remarks.
• So I'm very grateful for this hearing today.
• Thank you so much for including us in today's hearing.
• I hear a theme of collaboration need and interest from the first panel.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Regulatory Authority held its first hearing to examine how California’s regulatory framework affects housing production, affordability, and timelines. Chair Pacheco and Assemblymember Haney framed the discussion around the state’s housing shortage and the need to reduce costs while maintaining environmental, safety, and community protections. The first panel featured housing experts and industry representatives who argued that state regulations, code complexity, utility constraints, and agency review processes add substantial cost and delay to development. Bill Fulton described overlapping state and local land-use authorities and the tension among housing, coastal protection, climate, and wildfire goals. CBIA’s Chris Ochoa and California Apartment Association representative Bob Raymer said building codes, energy mandates, and agency processes have materially increased per-home costs, and they urged more centralized affordability analysis and greater scrutiny of regulatory impacts. The Bay Area Council’s Louis Marante called for a statewide cost target for housing and stronger timelines and accountability for state agency reviews. The second panel brought in state agencies to explain their roles. HCD said its housing element enforcement, streamlining laws, and technical assistance have helped increase production, shorten entitlement timelines, and improve compliance by local governments. CARB said SB 375 is a planning law that does not directly regulate land use, and argued that regional housing assumptions in sustainable communities strategies are not being fully implemented on the ground. The Coastal Commission said it works with local governments to balance coastal protection, sea-level-rise risk, and housing, and noted recent guidance and pilot efforts to streamline housing approvals in the coastal zone. The Energy Commission said its building energy standards are designed to be cost-effective and save consumers money over time, though they can add some design and documentation complexity. Fish and Wildlife and DTSC both emphasized early engagement and collaboration to reduce delays while protecting natural resources and public health; DTSC said it is refining vapor intrusion guidance and using brownfield grants to support redevelopment. The State Water Resources Control Board said it uses general orders and basin planning to provide predictable permitting while balancing water quality, water rights, and housing needs, and noted billions in grants and loans for water infrastructure and site remediation that can support housing affordability. In response to questions from Assemblymember Haney, several agencies described ongoing coordination across departments, including regular meetings among HCD, CARB, the Coastal Commission, and transportation agencies, as well as broader interagency efforts to reduce redundancies and identify pinch points in project delivery. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the hearing; the main outcome was informational testimony and discussion of possible future reforms to improve coordination, predictability, and affordability in state regulatory processes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Calling this hearing of the Assembly Education Committee to order.
• We will now begin with the only file item on today's hearing.
• We hear all the time, you know, three Jews, four opinions, right?
• That's what I'd be interested in hearing from you. Thank you.
• This hearing is adjourned.

Committee: House Education

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Did you hear the scenario I asked earlier?
• The Chair hears none. The bill is left pending.
• The Chair hears none, and the substitute is adopted.
• The Chair hears none, and the substitute is adopted.
• Because I know people are waiting to hear that. No, no.

Bills: HB5489 , HB5695 , HB5699 , SB291 , SB292

Committee: House Land & Resource Management

Keywords: impact fee, moratorium, local government, Texas legislation, infrastructure funding, municipal utility district, eminent domain, bonds, assessments, infrastructure, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Harris County, Municipal Utility District, territory exclusion, debt service taxes, property taxation, condemnation, property acquisition, real property, appraisal reports

Transcript Highlights:

• Hearing none, the committee substitute is now adopted.
• We hear from the teachers in our district.
• I say future hearings very soon in our public hearings that will be set because of the districts that
• And we're hearing them with this. We hear you.
• But I'm encouraged to hear across...

Bills: SB26 , SB 26

Committees: Senate Education , Senate Education K-16

Keywords: teacher compensation, education funding, public school educators, teacher retention, teacher designation, SB 26, Texas Property Code, colonia, colonias, Spanish translation, bilingual contract, real estate contract, executory contract, residential property, border county, international border, economically distressed area, consumer protection, language access, translator certified in Spanish

Transcript Highlights:

• Hearing none, motion carries. Thank you, Representative Raymond.
• So I'd be interested to get to the bill hearing to hear why. Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
• Hearing none, motion carries. Thank you, Representative McCann.
• In the hearing, we had this discussion with Governor DeSantis.
• Hearing none, motion carries. Committee will have before us RS 33361.

Committee: House Transportation and Defense

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The purpose of today's hearing is to lay out bills and to address pending business.
• Hearing none, we'll open for public testimony. We have no witnesses registered.
• Hearing none, we'll open for public testimony. We have no witnesses registered.
• The chair hears none.
• Hearing none, Senator Sparks moves that the committee stand in recess until 7 AM.

Bills: HB346 , HB1851 , HB2974 , HB5596 , HCR118 , HCR127 , HCR141

Committee: Senate Economic Development

Keywords: expedited service, business records, veteran-owned businesses, franchise tax, fee schedule, surplus vehicles, law enforcement equipment, school districts, Texas Facilities Commission, economically disadvantaged areas, HB 5596, voter-approval tax rate, property tax, ad valorem tax, Tax Code, Texas municipalities, coastal municipality, eligible coastal municipality, municipal hotel occupancy tax, hotel occupancy tax revenue

Transcript Highlights:

• At this hearing, we will hear testimony on initiative petition number 25-17, H5-006. 25-17 H-506, enact
• Now you may hear opponents raise concerns, but too often what you're hearing is fearmongering rather
• During this hearing, we've lost somewhere between five and ten individuals just in this hearing alone
• Now look, you'll hear lots of numbers.
• Can you hear me? We can hear you, yep.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on two proposed ballot initiatives: one to reduce the state personal income tax rate from 5% to 4% over three years, and another to revise the state’s tax collection cap/62F process so it would be based on prior-year collections plus wage growth and include surtax revenue. The committee chair and House co-chair outlined the hearing process, and the first witness was Doug Howgate of the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation, who testified as the committee’s subject-matter expert on both measures. He said the income tax proposal would lower taxes broadly but would reduce state revenue by about $5.4 billion when fully implemented, with an estimated $800 million hit in FY27, and he discussed possible effects on competitiveness, taxpayer savings, and public finances. On the 62F proposal, he said the revised cap would make refunds more likely, could have produced several large refunds in recent years, and would reduce stabilization fund deposits and constrain recovery after recessions. Committee members questioned Howgate about competitiveness, outmigration, prior tax ballot measures, spending growth, MassHealth, and the interaction between the income tax and surtax. He emphasized that taxes are only one part of the state’s overall competitiveness and that housing, public services, and other factors also matter. He also noted that the surtax is constitutionally restricted but can still support ongoing spending choices. After his testimony, the committee moved to the proponents’ panel. Proponents of both initiatives, including representatives from Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts, the National Federation of Independent Business, Pioneer Institute, and the Mass Opportunity Alliance, argued that the measures would improve affordability, help retain residents and businesses, and support job growth. They cited polling support, outmigration, small-business reinvestment, and comparisons to lower-tax states such as North Carolina. Their economist, Rebecca Paxton, said her model showed smaller revenue losses than critics claim and projected that the revised revenue cap would not create additional annual revenue losses while producing more regular taxpayer refunds. Committee members pressed the panel on competitiveness, prior ballot initiative implementation, and whether the measures would actually address broader affordability pressures; the hearing ended with the committee continuing to take questions from the proponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair and committee members for hearing this bill.
• Chairman and members, for hearing this bill.
• Chairman and members, for hearing the bill.
• And so some of these hearings are being done in 15 minutes.
• Now, we are not going to hear Representative Olson's bill.

Committee: House House Government Committee of Reference

Summary: The committee heard a series of bills and resolutions, many of them on property, local government, and memorial topics. HB 2079, authorizing a memorial for journalist Don Bolles at Wesley Bolin Plaza, passed unanimously after sponsor testimony about the 50th anniversary of his assassination and the memorial’s no-cost nature. HB 2080, as amended, advanced 7-0 on deed and title fraud prevention measures, including photo ID requirements, notarization and deed-filing safeguards, an assessor alert program, and a felony penalty for knowingly submitting false or forged real-property claims. HB 464, which moves the petition process for municipal improvement districts earlier in the process, passed 5-2 after testimony from Camp Verde, the Yavapai Apache Nation, developers, and the League of Arizona Cities and Towns; opponents argued it could force property owners into infrastructure they do not want, while supporters said it improves transparency and financing certainty. HB 2048, a proposed constitutional referral to withhold pay from state elected officials if the budget is not enacted by April 30, passed 4-3, with supporters saying it would create accountability and opponents saying broader process reforms are needed first. The committee also heard HB 2324, which would allow municipalities with their own fire codes to petition for county-owned buildings inside city limits to be exempt from separate state fire code inspections when conditions are met. County and state fire officials supported the concept, saying it would resolve conflicting statutes and formalize intergovernmental agreements, and the bill passed 7-0. HB 4087, authorizing a memorial plaque for former legislator Barbara Leff, also passed unanimously, with the sponsor noting her service in both chambers and her work on veterans and health care issues. HB 2239, creating a child care grant program and infrastructure fund for underserved and low-income communities, drew extensive testimony from rural parents, child care advocates, and early childhood experts describing child care deserts, workforce losses, and safety concerns with unregulated care. Supporters said the bill would fund the facilities and infrastructure needed to expand regulated child care, especially in rural Arizona; the committee approved it 5-1 with one member present and one not voting. Members also discussed HB 2375, a historic-preservation-related middle housing bill, but the transcript cuts off before final action is shown; testimony reflected a sharp divide between preservation advocates supporting exemptions for historic districts and housing advocates warning the bill could worsen exclusion and housing shortages.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> These hearings are essentially a trial. These hearings are essentially a trial.
• </c><00:09:59.920><c> I</c> hearing with a jury three times. I hearing with a jury three times.
• </c> the current timeline of these hearings the current timeline of these hearings under<00:10:25.519
• Um, we subject to the 202C hearings.
• So, House Bill 45 outlines certification review hearings, and we're going to hear about that in a minute

Committee: House Health Services

Keywords: 00:00:06 - Call to Order/Roll Call 00:01:23 - Review of Referred Administrative Regulations 00:02:00 - Discussion of 26RS HB 485 01:00:40 - Roll Call Vote on 26RS HB 485 01:03:25 - Adjournment, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• He had his back turned to him, and the referee didn't hear a thing, but we could hear every word that
• Hearing no objection, the read will read.
• Hearing no objection, the read will read.
• Hearing no objection, the reader will be able to read. Hearing no objection, the reader will read.
• President, whenever I am hearing about all this, and we started hearing rumblings, I don't know, over

Summary: The Senate convened for an Indian Day/Native American Day session featuring prayers, drum and color guard presentations, and extensive recognition of tribal leaders, students, royalty, and community advocates from across New Mexico and neighboring tribal nations. Senators used the morning to introduce guests and speak about Native sovereignty, language preservation, education, water access, economic development, and the importance of tribal-state relationships. Several speakers highlighted personal and family ties to Native communities, while others emphasized ongoing work on issues such as clean water for Navajo communities, Native youth leadership, and missing and murdered Indigenous women and relatives. A major non-ceremonial item was the reading of Senate Executive Messages from the governor authorizing consideration of Senate Bills 306, 309, 312, and 313. Those bills would, respectively, change licensure rules for certain institutions, alter lottery tuition fund deposit requirements, and repeal or revise provisions related to safety helmets and child restraint devices in negligence and damages law. The Senate also received committee reports advancing House Bill 34, Senate Bills 204, 241, 77, 152, 190, and 143, along with confirmations for Elaine Luna and Grace Margaret Herrera to the New Mexico Highlands University Board of Regents. The Rules Committee also reported on the governor’s appointment of Don Walters as child advocate for the Office of the Child Advocate. The chamber also adopted a Senate resolution recognizing February 6, 2026, as New Mexico Speech, Language, and Hearing Association Day, with Senator Pope speaking in support of audiologists and speech-language pathologists. Throughout the session, members repeatedly acknowledged the prior night’s Senate-House basketball game, which raised more than $26,000 for cancer, and used the occasion to thank participants and guests. No roll-call votes were recorded in the transcript beyond voice votes adopting the committee reports and the unanimous-consent actions on floor procedures and guest access.

Transcript Highlights:

• Hearing none, the amendments are adopted.
• Hearing none, Senate Bill 221 is favorable.
• Hearing none, Senate Bill 221 is favorable.
• Hearing none, the amendments are adopted.
• So I hear a lot of the other side of this.

Bills: SCR37 , SB145 , SB237

Committee: House Health and Welfare

Keywords: informed consent, healthcare, medical procedures, patient rights, surgeon general, regulatory review, adult residential care, generators, emergency power, health safety, Louisiana Department of Health, compliance, regulations, child welfare, Department of Children and Family Services, mandatory reporting, abuse prevention, investigative teams, child ombudsman, forensic interviews

Transcript Highlights:

• Hearing none, HB 343 will be deferred. HB 491.
• Hearing none, HB 491 is voluntarily deferred. HB 523.
• Hearing none, let HB 523 be voluntarily deferred.
• I don't know, and that's what I'm anxious to hear.
• Those are the stories that we're hearing more often than not.

Bills: HB343 , HB378 , HB394 , HB396 , HB426 , HB439 , HB491 , HB523 , HB622 , HB676 , HB772 , HB1025 , HB1038

Committee: House Administration of Criminal Justice

Keywords: parole eligibility, juvenile offenders, rehabilitation, first-time offenders, reentry programs, substance abuse treatment, education programs, emergency responders, law enforcement, obstructing traffic, public safety, penalties, parole, criminal justice, release extension, prison reform, autopsy, criminal evidence, photographs, court proceedings

Transcript Highlights:

• Today's hearing is the first opportunity for the State Assembly and the public to hear directly from
• Thank you both for putting this hearing on together.
• Madam Chair, can you hear me? I can. It was loud. Madam Chair, can you hear me? I can.
• Can you hear me okay? Yes. Thank you. Can you hear me okay?
• Well, it looks like we're at the closing of our hearing.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'd like to open up the public hearing.
• Let's hear from that and public hearing.
• </c><00:11:34.560><c> and</c> we will begin our public hearing and we will begin our public hearing and
• </c><00:11:43.839><c> the</c> don't have to wait till you hear the don't have to wait till you hear the
• hearing hearing &gt;&gt; Barton.

Bills: HB585 , HB585

Committee: House Financial Services

Keywords: Washington County, circuit clerk, compensation, county government, local legislation, money transmission, transaction fees, international wire transfers, income tax credit, suspicious cash transactions, Securities Commission, 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We can hear you. Can you hear us? I can hear you. Okay. We don't see you, but we can hear you.
• We can hear you. Can you hear us? I can hear you. Okay. We don't see you, but we can hear you.
• After hearing the stories today and after hearing any concerns raised about this bill, I ask you to ask
• We hear you. Please state your name and affiliation; the podium is yours. Committee: We hear you.
• We can't hear you right now. We still can't hear you right now. We still can't hear you.

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 754, which would add physical therapists to Idaho’s direct primary care statute so they can enter direct payment agreements with patients without those arrangements being treated as insurance contracts. The sponsor and supporters said the bill would improve access, especially for patients who need frequent therapy or live in underserved areas, and emphasized that it would not expand physical therapists’ scope of practice. One member objected that the bill’s wording could blur the definition of primary care and create scope confusion. After testimony from a physical therapy association representative and a small business health care provider, the committee voted to send the bill to the floor with a do-pass recommendation, with several members recording no votes. The committee then took up House Bill 724, which would add and clarify safety-related rights for children in foster care, including safe placement, access to medical and forensic exams after abuse disclosures, basic necessities, and consideration of safety in visitation and placement decisions. The sponsor said the bill is a narrow child-safety measure that does not alter parental rights or removal standards, while foster parents, a psychologist, former foster youth, and others testified in support with accounts of abuse, unsafe placements, and inadequate oversight. Some members raised concerns about enumerating rights in statute and about broad language that could have unintended future consequences; a substitute motion to send the bill to amending order failed on a roll call vote, and the original motion to send the bill to the floor with a do-pass recommendation passed. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 759, a budget-related measure to reduce Medicaid residential habilitation funding and require a new audit/rate study of home and community-based services. The sponsor said the reduction reflects a governor’s budget recommendation and that the audit would help determine appropriate rates and spending. Providers and family members of people with disabilities testified that the bill was too vague, that prior rate studies were not fully followed, and that any reductions could harm staffing and services; they asked for clearer standards, collaboration, and assurance that rate-study results would actually be used. A motion to hold the bill until a later date was offered, but the sponsor opposed delaying the budget item and the committee continued discussion toward a floor recommendation.

Transcript Highlights:

• Hearing none, the motion passes.
• Hearing none. Is there any debate against? Hearing none. Debate is closed.
• none is there any debate against hearing none debate or any debate against hearing none debate is closed
• Don't yell because I can't hear my hearing aid. Go ahead.
• Hearing none, the clerk may proceed.

Keywords: 989, all