Transcript Highlights:

• All right, hearing none, I will call for testimony.
• Please introduce yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
• Uh, I don't have call for testimony.
• Thank you, proceed with your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Mr.
• At this point, I'll do a final call for testimony.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your testimony. We do have a few questions.
• um we do have a few questions testimony um we do have a few questions we<00:09:44.000> also<00
• Fraser, for your testimony.
• thank you Mr Fraser for your testimony thank you Mr Fraser for your testimony Senator<00:17:34.320
• I appreciate your testimony.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00 Roll Call 00:36 SB 4 Discussion 01:16 SB 4 Vote 28:30 SB 130 Discussion 31:18 SB 130 Discussion 36:02, 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 4, as amended by a committee substitute, which would create a state artificial intelligence governance framework for Kentucky government agencies and address AI-generated misinformation in campaigns and elections. The bill’s sponsors said it is intended to regulate only state government use of AI, not the private sector, and would require oversight by the Office of Technology, agency reporting, and annual reporting to the General Assembly. They also said the elections provisions were narrowed to focus on AI-generated audio and video, remove image disclosures, eliminate prior restraint and monetary damages, and rely on disclosure requirements modeled on laws they said had survived constitutional review in Texas. Testimony on SB 4 was mixed. Supporters emphasized transparency, human accountability, and the need to prepare state government for rapidly changing AI tools, citing possible uses such as fraud detection, inmate classification, and transportation planning. An opponent from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression argued the bill would burden core political speech, create First Amendment problems, and invite litigation and abuse, especially in the election context. Members asked about litigation, constitutional concerns, costs, and whether the bill should be expanded later to cover ordinary citizens harmed by AI-generated content. Several members expressed support but noted reservations about the election sections or the need for future amendments. After discussion, the committee voted on SB 4 and reported it favorably. The roll call showed the measure passing with favorable expression, with some members explaining votes as supportive but cautious, and one member initially passing before later recording a yes vote. The chair then moved to Senate Bill 130, and Senator Scott Maiden and Kentucky Retail Federation representative Shannon Stiglets began presenting it as a response to gift card scams and theft of redemption information, describing recent large-scale supermarket fraud cases in Kentucky and saying the problem is tied to broader organized retail crime.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you wish to give testimony, please fill out a witness card, sign it, and hand it to the sergeant at
• Your signature indicates that the testimony you give is true.
• Today's business is to receive public testimony and vote to accept, reject, or modify the port priority
• The committee will receive public testimony and vote to accept, reject, or modify the port priority applications

Keywords: 965, house, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Transportation, Highways and Public Works met to receive public testimony and act on port priority applications for inclusion in the FY 2027-2028 Port Priority Construction and Development Priority Program. After approving the March 9, 2026 minutes, the committee heard from Commissioner Andrew Kilshaw of the Office of Multimodal Commerce on two applications from the Avoyelles Harbor and Terminal District: a building addition and waterfront industrial improvements project, and a Workforce Training Center redevelopment project. He said both met program criteria and projected substantial state benefits, jobs, and high benefit-cost ratios. Committee members asked about the projected jobs, the unusually high benefit-cost ratio, and the status of other port projects. Kilshaw and DOTD’s Molly Bergoin said the program has a backlog of more than $200 million, but the department is working through it, with some projects nearing closeout. They also said the annual request cap has been increased and that a tiered funding approach is being considered to help projects compete for federal dollars. Members expressed support for expanding investment in ports and for a statewide strategic plan. Chairman Boriak moved to accept the port priority applications received through March 1, 2026, for inclusion in the FY 2027-2028 program. There was no objection, and the committee accepted the projects. The meeting then adjourned without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, as always, we will be, um, we will, uh, limit public testimony to 2 minutes per witness. Um.
• If there are no further questions, we'll proceed to testimony. The chair calls Robin Painovich.
• Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. The chair calls. Uh, Ray.
• OK, thank you for your testimony. You bet. Chair calls Sarah Cohen. We show you registered.

Transcript Highlights:

• Testimony is limited to two minutes per witness.
• All right, we'll move to additional testimony in support.
• Anyone wanting to provide additional testimony in opposition?
• All right, we'll open it up for additional testimony and support.
• Opening it up for additional testimony in support.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I appreciate all the testimony and comments.
• I appreciate all the testimony and comments.
• So thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you very much for your testimony. I will turn to other members. There's coming. "Testimony.
• Thank you all for your testimony, very helpful." "Thank you.

Summary: The joint Senate and Assembly labor committees held a hearing on the Los Angeles wildfires and their impact on workers, employers, and recovery efforts. Chairs and members emphasized that rebuilding should prioritize worker safety, equity, local hiring, and strong labor standards rather than simply moving quickly or relying on the lowest bidder. They also stressed the need to learn from past disasters and to create a more coordinated state response for future emergencies. Worker advocates described how domestic workers, day laborers, firefighters, and other frontline workers were affected by the fires. Testimony focused on workers being trapped in evacuation zones, lacking timely information in Spanish, losing jobs and income, and facing exposure to toxic debris without adequate PPE. Speakers called for expanded outreach and education, stronger Cal/OSHA enforcement, broader occupational safety coverage for domestic workers and day laborers, recall and transfer rights, childcare and transportation support, and a centralized disaster relief system that can quickly deliver cash aid and equipment regardless of immigration status. Firefighter Derek Irwin said California firefighters face serious carcinogenic exposure and urged continued funding for the firefighter cancer prevention and research program, along with a long-term state health monitoring and research effort similar to the World Trade Center Health Program. Building trades and labor representatives argued that cleanup and rebuilding should be done through community workforce agreements, prevailing wage, apprenticeship requirements, and local hire provisions, and said the state already has trained workers available. They also said federal debris-removal work through the Army Corps has limited the state’s ability to impose some standards, but that state and local funding or subsidies should trigger labor requirements. Employer and business representatives described major losses to property, inventory, revenue, and jobs, especially in Altadena and nearby areas. The Altadena Chamber said it is coordinating recovery resources, while a construction business owner said small local firms are being shut out of disaster contracts and proposed a more accessible procurement process for local and minority businesses. LAEDC presented preliminary estimates of billions in property damage and business disruption, tens of thousands of potential job losses, and a recovery timeline of five to ten years, warning that low-income communities will be disproportionately affected and that workforce retraining and upskilling will be needed alongside the broader economic recovery.

Transcript Highlights:

• >> Well, I I did the testimony. >> Well, I I did the testimony.
• One of which is Miss Voss, which I appreciate you putting your testimony in the portal here.
• And with that, I'll end my testimony. I'm not going to take any questions.
• And with that, I'll end my testimony. I'm not going to take any questions. Thank you so much.
• So you had mentioned in your testimony So you had mentioned in your testimony that that that um<

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So some of the testimony we heard from FDA today, for example, Have played.
• Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to question.
• Please continue with your testimony. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Committee members.
• Appreciate y'all's testimony. Appreciate y'all's time. Appreciate y'all being here.
• Appreciate y'all's testimony. Appreciate y'all's time.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, maybe we'll just roll into testimony from Mr. Waginius and Mr.
• Uh, so I'll uh further testimony. Great.
• I'll turn over my testimony to my testifiers as soon as I can.
• Just a few additional comments to the testimony you heard before.
• few additional comments to the testimony few additional comments to the testimony you<01:49:48.080

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um early in your testimony >> Thank you.
• I'm a resident of Manchester and I'm passing around my testimony because on the backside of the testimony
• and I'm I am passing around my testimony and I'm I am passing around my testimony because<00:55:
• The fiscal first page of my testimony.
• <04:25:22.159> from You have also received testimony from You have also received testimony

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• testimony is and I read a bunch of it. testimony is and I read a bunch of it.
• You may begin your<02:20:40.479> testimony. your testimony. your testimony. >> Yep.
• You may begin your testimony. record. You may begin your testimony.
• You may begin your testimony.
• You may begin your testimony. record. You may begin your testimony.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And again, thank you to the chair and this committee for hearing my testimony.
• And again, thank you to the chair and this committee for hearing my testimony. Thank you.
• testimony. Thank you. testimony. Thank you.
• Uh thank you for your testimony. Uh thank you for your testimony.
• <01:21:19.800> Uh Uh thank you for your testimony. Uh Uh thank you for your testimony.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll just note that the testimony will be virtual.
• happy to hear your testimony. happy to hear your testimony.
• I'm reading the translated testimony of Habibbo Elme.
• proceed with your testimony. proceed with your testimony.
• testimony of Habibbo Elme. testimony of Habibbo Elme.

Bills: HF3425, HF3424, HF1385

Keywords: supportive housing, grants, housing assistance, funding, Minnesota Statutes, eviction, rent, nonpayment of rent, landlord-tenant, residential tenant, notice to quit, unlawful detainer, housing, lease violation, late fees, rental assistance, legal aid, tenant rights, Minnesota Statutes 504B.321, pre-eviction notice

Transcript Highlights:

• next part of my testimony next part of my testimony >> since<00:46:26.800> it<00:46
• >> Madam Chair, I did look up some of the testimony we heard.
• not named anybody didn't in my testimony not named anybody didn't in my testimony and<01:24:33.600
• We heard<01:36:19.840> testimony<01:36:20.880> um heard testimony um heard testimony um
• We have no testimony to that.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• none, thank you for your testimony. none, thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you very much for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Please come to the microphone testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony. Great. Thank you for your testimony. Great.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard testimony on House Bill 1042, which would increase the BFA contingent credit limit. State Treasurer Monica Misipelli explained that under RSA 66, state debt capacity is tied to unrestricted revenue and that guaranteed debt counts in the calculation even though it is contingent rather than direct debt. She said the state currently has about 4.2% to 4.3% debt-to-revenue ratio, about $120 million in additional capacity, and that approving the bill’s proposed increase would reduce available capacity for future state borrowing, including capital budgets. She noted the BFA has a long history of using guarantees without a state payout, but said the legislature should consider whether the full additional $250 million is needed and whether unused guarantee authorizations, such as one for the Pease Development Authority, should be reviewed in the future. Committee members asked whether guarantees have the same effect as actual debt for bonding capacity, and the treasurer confirmed that they do for purposes of the formula. Members also asked about the usual level of debt relative to the statutory 10% cap, and she said the state generally stays well below that limit. BFA Executive Director James Key Wallace then testified that the request was driven by rising project costs, inflation, and the need for more runway so the agency does not have to return to the legislature in an emergency. He said the BFA is self-supported, has never had a guarantee paid out by the state, requires collateral and reserves, and believes the appropriate range is closer to $400 million to $450 million; he also said a Senate bill would raise the limit to $400 million. He added that the BFA’s pipeline includes projects from about $15 million to $100 million and that housing availability is an important factor in business location decisions. After closing the work session on House Bill 1042, the committee opened House Bill 241, a bill on health insurance coverage for pain management services for chronic pain. Representative Dave Nagel, the prime sponsor, gave extensive background on his long career in pain medicine and said the bill is intended to improve access to non-opioid therapies and evidence-based pain management. He described the broad population affected by chronic pain and opioid use disorder, and said the proposal has long had bipartisan and stakeholder support. No vote or final action was taken on House Bill 241 in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• I know I have um conclude my testimony.
• with that, I will conclude my testimony with that, I will conclude my testimony and<00:10:19.040
• Um but has submitted their testimony.
• you mentioned in your testimony that if you mentioned in your testimony that if this<01:31:45.199>
• prior to me um who provided testimony. prior to me um who provided testimony.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• All testimony comments are limited to the bill at hand.
• And to provide some testimony toward this, I'd ask Mr.
• Please provide testimony. Moved by Carrillo, seconded by Rogers.
• Is there any other testimony in support of this bill?
• With very abbreviated testimony, are...

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee met on April 22 and took up a special order of bills focused largely on prior authorization and utilization management in health care. The chair framed the discussion as part of a broader legislative effort to reduce delays and barriers to care, especially in behavioral health, chronic disease management, cancer treatment, and rehabilitation services. AB 384 by Assembly Member Connolly would prohibit prior authorization for inpatient mental health or substance use emergency admissions and related physician care; supporters said it would prevent dangerous delays in crisis care, while insurers and health plans warned about fraud, abuse, and ambiguity around residential treatment facilities. The bill was moved on a due pass as amended motion and passed the committee on a party-line style vote, with Republicans largely absent or not voting. The committee then heard AB 510 by Assembly Member Addis, which would require health plans, upon request, to provide a peer reviewer of the same or similar specialty when a treating provider appeals a prior authorization denial or modification. Supporters argued that specialty-matched review would make appeals fairer and more clinically informed; opponents said the requirement was too rigid and that timelines and electronic submission rules needed changes. After discussion about the need for timely, specialty-specific review, the bill was approved on a due pass as amended motion and placed on call. AB 539 by Assembly Member Schiavo would extend prior authorization approvals to one year or the duration of the physician’s prescribed treatment for chronic conditions; supporters cited repeated denials and treatment interruptions, while opponents raised concerns about overbreadth, fraud, and the need for shorter validity periods. The bill was also passed as amended and placed on call. The committee next considered AB 669 by Assembly Member Haney, which would bar concurrent and retrospective review for the first 28 days of medically necessary substance use disorder treatment and limit prior authorization for related outpatient medications. The bill was presented with a powerful personal story from Ryan Matlock’s mother about her son’s death after an insurer cut off treatment early; supporters said the measure would keep patients in care long enough to stabilize, while opponents argued it would reduce oversight and could allow lower-quality or non-evidence-based care. The bill was moved on a due pass as amended motion and placed on call. Finally, AB 512 by Assembly Member Harabedian would shorten prior authorization response times to 24 hours for urgent requests and 48 hours for non-urgent requests; supporters said delays can worsen outcomes, while opponents warned the timelines were unrealistic and could increase administrative burdens and safety issues. The bill was approved as amended and placed on call. AB 574 by Assembly Member Mark Gonzalez was then heard; it would allow up to 12 medically necessary physical therapy sessions for a new episode of care without prior authorization, with supporters emphasizing stroke and neurological recovery and opponents warning of reduced oversight and unnecessary care. The transcript ends during testimony on AB 574, before final action is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you very much for your testimony.
• I appreciate your hearing testimony.
• So that concludes my testimony. I appreciate your time.
• So that concludes my testimony. I appreciate your time. Thank you very much for your testimony.
• testimony. All set. All set. Thank you. testimony. All set. All set. Thank you.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I would have... testimony during the special committee, testimony during the special committee, 12<00
• <00:55:24.680> testimony.
• Um, if uh, Representative D. testimony.
• Um, just formulating in my brain some of the things that we hear in testimony.
• Um, and you know, this this testimony.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to continue its review of recommendations for New Hampshire’s family court, with the chair emphasizing a collaborative approach and noting that the group would focus on the origins of the family division, recurring problems identified in earlier reports, and comparisons with other states. Members discussed organizing testimony into three broad topics: the court hearing process and pro se litigant preparation, mediation/arbitration/counseling, and the interaction of domestic violence issues with family court and related criminal proceedings. The chair also noted that the subcommittee would not meet again for two weeks and encouraged members to review materials from Judge Michael Mace and NCSL research on other states’ family court systems. Attorney Heather Culp, senior administrator for the judicial branch’s circuit court, testified about New Hampshire’s ADR programs. She explained that the Office of Mediation and Arbitration, created by statute in 2007, oversees more than 12 statewide ADR programs across the Supreme, Superior, and Circuit Courts, including family division programs such as divorce-parenting mediation, neutral case evaluation, guardianship, termination of parental rights, and voluntary adoption mediation. She said the divorce-parenting mediation program is the largest family division ADR program, with about 3,400 mediation sessions in 2023 out of roughly 6,700 cases, and that most cases involving minor children are referred to mediation soon after the first appearance session. Culp described the family division process as beginning with a first appearance session led by a case manager, who provides information, helps with paperwork, and schedules mediation, usually within 30 to 45 days. She said mediation is strongly encouraged in parenting and divorce cases, but there is no requirement to reach agreement, and parties may settle some issues while leaving others for court. She also explained that mediation is prohibited or limited in certain domestic violence cases: cases with active civil protection orders may proceed only with both parties’ consent and possible safeguards, while cases involving criminal protective orders are not sent to mediation. Mediators in court-referred family cases are contracted with the court and must be certified by the executive branch’s mediator certification board; mediators do not communicate with judges, except through a brief ADR report noting whether the case settled or what the next procedural step is. Members asked about referrals, timing, and the meaning of “neutrals,” and Culp said the court uses in-house contracted neutrals for family division ADR and does not refer divorce-parenting cases to outside providers.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:29:41.600> at ask you to wrap up your testimony at ask you to wrap up your testimony at
• Thank you so much for your testimony and being here today.
• increase you've heard prior testimony increase you've heard prior testimony we're<01:24:53.360><
• Amend the title accordingly as was mentioned earlier during testimony.
• mentioned earlier uh during testimony mentioned earlier uh during testimony section<01:35:36.679

Bills: HF1143, HF1548, HF1340, HF2549, HF2559, HF1673, HF2740, HF2507, HF2461, HF2381, HF2695

Keywords: education funding, unemployment aid, special education, Minnesota statutes, appropriations, housing, redevelopment, local government, trust funds, community development, HF1340, housing infrastructure bonds, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, MHFA, affordable housing, supportive housing, permanent housing, adaptive reuse, area median income, AMI