Transcript Highlights:

• How is HCPF going to implement a cap? I think the cap is now gone.
• They're capped. How is a cap going to work on this? I have no idea.
• implement a cap cuz how would they? implement a cap cuz how would they?
• Putting a cap on when we have caps on everything else.
• > on Putting a cap on when we have caps on Putting a cap on when we have caps on everything<01:34

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The committee and floor took up House Bill 1411, which concerned the Cover All Colorado program. Debate centered on whether removing the program’s cap would create an open-ended entitlement and add pressure to the state budget. Supporters and opponents argued over fiscal impacts, with several members saying the program had grown far beyond its original cost estimate and that the state needed to protect the budget and maintain a balanced plan. The bill was ultimately passed as amended. House Bill 1412 was then considered, authorizing the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing to use statistical sampling and extrapolation to recover Medicaid overpayments in certain provider audits, including ABA therapy and non-emergency medical transportation. Sponsors said the measure would help recapture millions in overpayments tied to fraud, waste, and abuse, and noted safeguards such as strict benchmarks, internal audit review, and a third-party audit firm. An amendment striking the word “alleged” from the bill was adopted, and the bill passed as amended. House Bill 1413, which changes leave provisions for certain public servants, was also approved. The bill removes a statutory cap on how much sick leave state employees may earn, while leaving actual leave policies to departments and bargaining agreements, and increases annual military leave to align with federal law. Members described it as a modest employee-benefit measure in a year without across-the-board pay raises. The House also laid over House Bill 1410 until later in the day and received the committee of the whole report on a large slate of other bills. Later, Representative Richardson sought to reverse the committee’s action on an amendment to House Bill 1389, which involved the comprehensive human sexuality education grant fund, arguing the grant program should be repealed if it is no longer funded.

Transcript Highlights:

• So my question is, if it’s capped at 110%, what happens to the excess money?
• So if it’s capped at 110, I’m just curious about what happens to whatever excess.
• The reimbursement rate for any of the specific services and putting that cap at 110%.
• The cap, the 12,000 cap, and we're just below it, because really it's not an even 12,000 number.
• The cap, the 12,000 cap, and we're just below it, because really it's not an even, you know, 12,000 number

Summary: The Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee heard and passed two measures before receiving a staff presentation on the local bill process and local delegation meetings. HB 4007, by Rep. Snyder, would cap reimbursement for certain inmate emergency medical services in Martin County at 110% of the Medicare rate, with a higher cap if a provider shows it is operating at a loss. Snyder said the bill is intended to create predictability and save taxpayer dollars; members asked about fiscal effects and whether other counties could adopt similar language. Public testimony came in support from Martin County and related local officials, and the bill was reported favorably by a 17-0 vote. The committee also passed HM 4005, by Rep. Daly, which urges Congress to increase Florida National Guard force structure. Daly argued Florida’s troop allocation is outdated and inadequate for the state’s population and disaster demands, contributing to burnout and recruiting problems. Members asked about the basis for the current allocation, possible budget and infrastructure impacts, and the National Guard’s needs; there was no opposition or public testimony, and the memorial was reported favorably by a 17-0 vote. After the votes, Reps. Holcomb and Kendall gave a detailed presentation explaining how local bills differ from general laws, constitutional limits on local legislation, required local delegation meetings and notice, certification and economic impact forms, and amendment procedures. Members asked several process questions, including about multi-county delegations and Miami-Dade’s special status. The meeting ended with a few recognitions and adjournment before session.

Transcript Highlights:

• Why wouldn’t they join the PCF to get the benefit of the cap?
• PCF, you get the benefits of the cap.
• There is a cap. May I answer? So Arizona has no caps on damages.
• Colorado and Texas cap non-economic damages. So the value of somebody's life is capped.
• Texas caps non-economic damages, so the value of somebody's life is capped in those states.

Bills: SB41, SB153, SB165, SB261, SB264

Keywords: sexual crimes, statute of limitations, criminal justice, victim rights, child abuse, procurement, contracting, small business, local government, disaster recovery, emergency procurement, certification, public spending, juvenile justice, delinquency, rehabilitation, community corrections, risk assessment, public safety, health regulations

Transcript Highlights:

• The town budget cap language is exactly the same language currently in the school district budget cap
• A town budget cap sets an annual cap on proposed town spending.
• Budget caps are currently manner.
• A town to override the budget cap.
• And in each year, a town budget cap.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The cap calculations last year— The cap calculations, last year was the first year, as you know.
• And the 3% cap specifically, how that's determined?
• Because the 3% cap on a county right now, do we need to have the caps in place? So go ahead, Mr.
• We have a cap.
• I mean, the cap is going to do that.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The subcommittee of the Tax Reform and Relief Committee met with a quorum to begin its study of whether the content of North Dakota real estate tax statements should be revised to improve transparency. Legislative Council staff reviewed the background for the study, including House Bill 1176, current statutory requirements for tax statements, and recent changes such as separate line items for bonded debt, primary residence credit, and legacy fund-related amounts. The Tax Department then explained the current statement format and noted that the form is prescribed and approved by the tax commissioner, with changes typically driven by statute and implemented collaboratively with counties and vendors. County officials from the North Dakota Association of Counties described the full annual process for preparing budgets, setting levies, calculating taxable values, and issuing notices and tax statements. They said counties spend significant time coordinating with taxing districts, neighboring counties, and software vendors, and that the new budget hearing notices and valuation notices have not generated much public response. Members raised concerns about the usefulness and clarity of certain line items, especially the legislative tax relief calculation and the primary residence credit, and discussed whether the current statement creates confusion rather than transparency. Testimony also addressed the 3% cap, mill levy worksheets, assessment cycles, and the role of county auditors and tax directors in maintaining accurate values. The committee also heard from software vendors CPT and Tyler Technologies about how legislative changes are programmed into tax systems and how online taxpayer portals can provide more detailed breakdowns of tax bills. Vendors said changes required by law are generally absorbed in contracts rather than billed directly to counties, and they demonstrated web tools and pie-chart style breakdowns that show where tax dollars go. NDACO presented a survey of eight counties estimating tax statement preparation and mailing costs, concluding that outsourced printing tends to be cheaper on average and that total statewide tax statement costs may be roughly $600,000, though the estimate was based on limited data. No votes were taken; the meeting was informational and focused on gathering testimony and identifying issues for possible future recommendations or bill drafts.

Transcript Highlights:

• in Santa Fe and we ask for that cap.
• 388 million in volume cap.
• legislative bill, the big beautiful bill, that may help reduce demand for cap or at least allow cap
• Madam Chair, Senator Gonzales, we have to Volume cap.
• How much direct allocation we First out, so that we don't leave any cap on the table.

Transcript Highlights:

• At the governor's level, line 338 is a 2% cap, while line 342 is a 4% cap, and neither is included in
• At the governor's level, line 338 is a 2% cap, while line 342 is a 4% cap, and that is not included in
• The Senate position includes the 4% cap The Senate position includes the 4% cap which<00:07:13.759
• item and the 4% operating payment cap item and the 4% operating payment cap total<00:07:49.360><
• place a cap on IHS uh training services. place a cap on IHS uh training services.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's only an age change difference. 75 is now the cap.
• This will cap their homestead property tax.
• So this caps the ... for 65 and older. 65 and older. It caps their estate taxation.
• > property<00:36:45.599> tax will cap their homestead property tax will cap their homestead
• It caps their estate >> 65 and older.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We reduced the ask for salaries down to, we're capping it at 10% of the current budget.
• Okay, so we reduced from 19.8 down to 10% and it's a 10% cap. That is correct, yeah. Okay.
• Do you speculate that he would agree to some kind of cap, either a percentage cap, or I was even thinking
• Do you speculate that he would agree to some kind of cap, either a percentage cap, or I was even thinking
• Yeah, I do not believe that the treasurer would be opposed to conversations about a cap.

Summary: The committee first heard a Special Language Committee report from Senator McKee, who reported that the subcommittee adopted nine amendments related to Governor’s Letter 7 and 30, including amendments to HB 1005 and one sponsored by Senator Dismang. The committee then adopted the report and approved several items on the special language agenda, including HB 101 (Department of Corrections), HB 1017 (Department of Agriculture promotion boards), HB 1009 (Department of Public Safety), and SB 10 (Department of Commerce, Division of Workforce Services). During discussion of SB 10, members questioned a $10 million unemployment insurance modernization item, and Commerce/DFA explained it was a continuation of existing funding rather than a new increase. The meeting then turned to the Treasurer’s budget, where members raised concerns about prior and proposed salary increases in the office, especially the size of raises for senior staff compared with lower-paid employees. Committee members repeatedly asked whether the new appropriation would be directed to the investment team rather than top administrators, and whether special language could cap raises or otherwise limit how the money could be used. The Treasurer’s representative said the office was willing to discuss caps and that no final decisions on raises had been made, but several members remained dissatisfied and emphasized the need for the Treasurer himself to appear. Representative Lundstrum moved to hold the Treasurer’s budget, and the committee approved the hold. After that, the committee referred items with special language to the special language process and then batch-approved a series of supplemental and reappropriation bills, followed by individual due-pass actions on multiple bills, including HB 1006, HB 1013, HB 1016, HB 1033, HB 1048, HB 1050, HB 1053, HB 1065, HB 1078, and several Senate bills such as SB 2, SB 14, SB 19, SB 26, SB 32, SB 42, SB 52, SB 53, and SB 74. Near the end, members discussed filing deadlines and the need to suspend rules for late special-language items, and Senator Irvin released a hold on HB 1064 before the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any of the kids on C-CAP then lost multiple days in their bank of absent days.
• part of their center and under C-CAP part of their center and under C-CAP rules<01:12:03.640>
• This isn’t just like every absence forever is paid by C Cap. That’s not what this bill says.
• That's not what this is paid by C Cap. That's not what this bill<01:31:31.840> says.
• Senator Liias, the one that's being put into place is not in place yet for C Cap.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• “That's just based on raising the cap for every adult, right?
• And that's where the separate cap came from.
• The rate changes and then the cap change.
• Two is the cap increase for adults with special needs, the $500 to $1,000.
• , the $500 to $1,000 cap increase.

Summary: The Administrative Rules Subcommittee of the Arkansas Legislative Council reviewed several agency rules and requests. It approved without objection an Insurance Department amendment implementing Act 261’s holding company system requirements, two State Board of Election Commissioners rules on poll watchers/provisional voting and certified election monitors, and a Treasurer of State rule removing DEI-related membership requirements to comply with Act 938. The committee also held over for a month a Department of Education request related to excluding a rule from reporting requirements so it could be discussed further with the Department of Commerce. A major portion of the meeting focused on the Department of Human Services’ request to be excluded from rulemaking for Acts 567, 568, 967, and 1025. DHS said federal CMS guidance created comparability and other issues for the Medicaid-related dental and diagnostic lab provisions, making it difficult to implement the acts as written by their effective dates. DHS outlined possible paths, including broader adult dental coverage, waivers, or splitting the dental rate increase from the special-needs cap increase. The Arkansas State Dental Association disputed DHS’s approach, arguing Act 1025 is workable, that the pediatric rate increase should move forward separately, and that DHS should continue pursuing the law rather than stop rulemaking. Committee members questioned both sides extensively about CMS correspondence, waiver timelines, fiscal impact, and whether the acts could be severed. After testimony from DHS, the Dental Association, and a public commenter, the committee adopted a motion not to exclude DHS from reporting requirements for Acts 567, 568, 967, and 1025, meaning DHS must continue the normal rulemaking/reporting process. The committee then accepted the Division of Higher Education’s report, which recommended repealing three of its 32 rules and keeping the remaining 29 in effect. It also received routine written updates on older and newer rulemaking items and filed the monthly updates without further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative, why should we cap the agent salary? You're right, nice.
• Also, the cap fosters fair market competition.
• One is capping agent fees on the front half. I mean, I have is twofold.
• One is capping agent fees on the front half.
• And I get the concern about the agents and the capping.

Summary: The subcommittee met with a quorum and took up a series of bills, beginning with PCS for HB 743 on social media use by minors. The sponsor said the bill would extend last session’s restrictions by requiring parental access to messages for minors ages 15 and 16 and allowing law enforcement access with a warrant or parental request. Members raised concerns about abuse situations and private communications, but the sponsor said the bill was aimed at protecting children from grooming and trafficking. The PCS was supported in public testimony and passed 15-0. Members then approved HB 1161, which would let victims of altered sexual depictions or deepfakes demand removal of the content and pursue civil remedies if it is not taken down; an amendment clarified a definition tied to federal law, and the bill passed 14-0. The committee also passed local bills for Duval County (HB 4053) and Oviedo/Seminole County (HB 4031) creating special alcohol licensing exception areas, and HB 717, which increases penalties for unlawful demolition of historic buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places, with supporters from historic preservation and local government groups. The committee next approved HB 1035 on building permits for single-family dwellings, as amended, to extend permit validity around building code updates, speed approvals after emergencies, and create faster review timelines for smaller projects; members questioned possible loopholes and storm-related applications, while the home builders association supported the measure. It also passed PCS for HB 1219 on employment agreements, creating a framework for covered non-compete and garden leave agreements for higher-wage employees or those with access to confidential information; several members objected to its impact on workers and the marketplace, and the vote was 11-5. Additional favorable votes were taken on HB 799 regarding condominium alcohol licenses, HB 869 expanding underground utility contractors’ scope to include certain fire line work after a contested amendment and testimony from both utility and fire sprinkler groups, HB 1071 on alternative plan reviews and inspections, PCS for HB 981 on athlete representation and NIL compensation, and PCS for HB 801 on HVAC/mechanical contractors repairing and replacing certain pool heaters, both of which drew mixed testimony and debate over scope and safety. The final item introduced was HB 311 on repair of motorized wheelchairs, which the sponsor said would improve access to parts, tools, and independent repair options for users.

Transcript Highlights:

• The cap is for the premium, and that cap is 1.2 percent. It can't go above that.
• it can go a little bit higher is a cap it can go a little bit higher the<00:08:46.800> cap<00
• :48.120> the<00:08:48.279> premium<00:08:48.839> and the cap the cap is for the
• premium and the cap the cap is for the premium and that's<00:08:49.279> that<00:08:49.519>
• <00:08:52.600> that's that's that cap is 1.2 um percent that's that's that cap is 1.2 um percent

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• that would restrict who may qualify, and that the net worth cap went away.
• He asked what the rationale was for taking off the net worth cap for people who might qualify for this
• <00:10:42.959> that versions there was a net worth cap that versions there was a net worth
• cap that would<00:10:43.600> kind<00:10:43.839> of<00:10:44.000> restrict<00:10
• was behind taking off the net worth cap was behind taking off the net worth cap for<00:10:54.320

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, so it doesn't increase the pay or anything like that or the cap.
• Uh, so it doesn't increase the pay or anything like that or the cap.
• pay or anything like that or the cap. pay or anything like that or the cap.
• And so or trying to increase a cap.
• requests of increasing the caps. requests of increasing the caps.

Bills: HB117, HB17, HB22, HB153, HB140, HB117, HB17, HB22, HB153, HB140, SB12, SB42, SB93, SB28, SB35, SB134, SB12, SB42, SB93, SB28, SB35, SB134

Keywords: procurement, county commission, administrative savings, public services, government efficiency, HB17, municipal audits, municipal audit clarification act, municipal finance, local government, city council, mayor, city manager, Department of Examiners of Public Accounts, independent public accountant, annual audit, biennial audit, annual report, financial accountability, public records

Transcript Highlights:

• Rent stabilization measures often have a fairly high cap or are based on the consumer price index for
• This measure would cap rental rate increases at the change in CPI.
• This ballot question caps rent. It doesn't cap any of these rising costs.
• Because if you cap rent, you cap value. If you cap value, you cap tax revenue.
• A rigid cap like this one, proposed legislation, does not account for those realities.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-21, House Bill 508, an act to protect tenants by limiting rent increases. Committee leaders explained the Article 48 initiative process and said the hearing was intended to gather testimony for a report to the legislature. The measure would replace current state law that prohibits rent control, cap annual rent increases at the lower of CPI or 5%, exempt certain properties including owner-occupied buildings of four or fewer units, subsidized, university, nonprofit, and short-term rental housing, and exempt new construction for 10 years. It would also eliminate vacancy decontrol, so limits would continue when units turn over, and enforcement would rely largely on tenants and the Attorney General through the courts. The hearing began with expert testimony from Whitney Airgood-Obrien of Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, who described Massachusetts’ severe rental affordability problems and reviewed research on rent regulation, noting mixed evidence on supply and quality effects but clearer evidence that rent regulation can slow rent growth and improve tenant stability. Supporters of the petition, led by Carolyn Chow of Homes for All Massachusetts, argued that rent stabilization is needed now to curb displacement and runaway rent increases, especially for low- and moderate-income renters. Laura Frost described her Arlington building being bought by a large firm that sought steep rent hikes, and said rent control would help prevent “tenant flipping” and community displacement. Dave Foley of SEIU Local 509 said the issue affects workers’ ability to live near their jobs, while Dr. Mark Paul and Tram Huang argued that the evidence supports well-designed rent stabilization, that vacancy decontrol encourages displacement, and that the policy should be seen as a complement to new housing production rather than a substitute. Committee members questioned supporters about the 10-year new construction exemption, the lack of vacancy decontrol, and whether rent stabilization could discourage development; supporters responded that the measure targets corporate rent gouging, that small landlords are protected by exemptions, and that production and rent stabilization can coexist. Opponents, including representatives of small property owners, chambers of commerce, and labor/building trades, argued the proposal would hurt small landlords, reduce investment, and slow housing production. They said operating costs such as taxes, insurance, and maintenance are rising faster than the proposed cap, and warned that the measure would reduce property values and tax revenue and could push investment to other states. Several opponents emphasized that many Massachusetts housing providers are mom-and-pop owners rather than large corporations, and said the policy would make it harder to maintain and improve housing. Committee members pressed both sides on the need for a middle ground between affordability and preserving development incentives, but no vote was taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Two plans have reinterpreted the statute and capped home care nursing coverage to just 10 days per year
• the<00:02:02.799> 2010<00:02:03.280> law The plans have said they applied these caps
• If we could go to drastic coverage cap.
• Her home care nursing agency had just informed her yesterday that her 120-visit cap imposed by Health
• Her home care nursing agency had just informed her yesterday that her 120-visit cap imposed by Health

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And as we get closer to our caps, we have fewer allowances that are available overall.
• But overall, we have a declining cap. We have revenues that could decline over time.
• It is true that the cap is going down, and so there will be fewer allowances.
• program, cap-and-invest program has.
• And the last thing is we're deeply concerned about the cap-and-invest regulation and what that means

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview of the May Revision from the Department of Finance and comments from the Legislative Analyst’s Office on the state’s overall budget condition and natural resources proposals. Finance said the May Revision keeps the budget balanced in 2026-27 and 2027-28, reduces the structural deficit, and includes major natural resources items such as Proposition 4 climate bond spending, including up to $125 million for the Golden Gate Fields acquisition, $23.2 million for wildlife refuge and wetland projects, $25 million for Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, $25 million for Bay-Delta environmental flows, $1 million for coexisting-with-wildlife work, and $2.5 million for cancer-risk research. The LAO said revenues remain strong but argued the budget still relies too heavily on reserves, recommended more savings and fewer new discretionary expenditures, and urged the Legislature to prioritize only urgent health and safety needs while planning for uncertainty in greenhouse gas reduction fund revenues. Members focused heavily on the Golden Gate Fields purchase, Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, the wildlife coexistence initiative, and cap-and-invest funding for transit. On Golden Gate Fields, agency officials said the property is a time-limited, once-in-a-generation opportunity, that the state’s contribution would help secure the acquisition, and that the land would ultimately transfer to East Bay Regional Park District, which would assume operations and maintenance. Officials said the site would be remediated by the current owner, the state would use deed restrictions to prevent commercial development, and the remaining purchase price would be covered by nonstate partners. On Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, Finance and the Natural Resources Agency said the $25 million would support scientific monitoring and early implementation of the Bay-Delta plan update, while the LAO questioned the timing and said the request was premature until the Water Board formally adopts the plan. The committee also discussed the coexisting-with-wildlife proposal and wolf-livestock conflict. Finance said the May Revision’s $1 million proposal would backfill existing funds to support limited-term staffing, deterrence tools, and conflict response, while members and the California Cattlemen’s Association said the need is larger and includes direct loss compensation, indirect loss compensation, and nonlethal deterrence. The Cattlemen’s Association said private insurance is limited and often inadequate for these losses. Members also raised concerns about the greenhouse gas reduction fund and transit, warning that lower auction revenues and possible CARB rule changes could leave major transit and other tier-three priorities underfunded. The LAO recommended planning for multiple revenue scenarios and reconsidering the current cap-and-invest spending framework. No votes or formal actions were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• And this bill now does not have caps in it.
• There, for general surgery, for instance, their med mal is $41,000 versus $1,000... caps, do have caps
• They do not have this type of cap.
• No caps because you can't put a price on a life.
• or doesn't have caps, right, but without caps.

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, opening prayer, Pledge of Allegiance, and a series of introductions recognizing interns, pages, and retiring Senate staff, including Pastor Gary Austin. Leaders also noted ongoing budget talks with the House and said senators would not need to plan on being in Tallahassee the following week. The chamber then moved to third reading and returned messages from the House later in the day. The main floor debate centered on Committee Substitute for House Bill 12.5, the citizen initiative/constitutional amendment bill. Sponsors said the measure was intended to address fraud in the petition process, citing investigations, arrests, pleas, and open cases involving paid circulators and invalid petitions. Opponents argued the bill would make citizen-led amendments far more difficult, expensive, and risky, warning it would chill grassroots participation, burden supervisors of elections, and effectively favor wealthy or corporate-backed efforts. Supporters responded that the bill preserved grassroots petitioning, placed reasonable guardrails on paid circulators and sponsors, and included a provision barring public funds from being used to advocate for or against ballot initiatives. The bill passed 28-10. The Senate also passed several education measures unanimously, including bills tied to Bright Futures, dual enrollment, educator preparation, and broader education policy. Later, the chamber concurred in House amendments on several bills: stem cell therapy legislation clarifying permitted therapies and penalties for improper use of fetal or embryonic tissue; an EKG requirement bill for student athletes with exemptions and partnership options for districts; and a cardiac emergency response bill that renamed the school emergency plan and removed a bill title honoring Rafe McCrone. These measures passed by wide margins, generally 37-0 or 38-0.

Transcript Highlights:

• This cap was created in 1991, when $15,000 went a lot further than it does today.
• As I said, this cap has been in place since 1991.
• Just a quick question: When was the last time this cap was changed or altered?
• Is there an age cap, or is this for... So this is under 18. Under 18.
• If you have a bound, you are capped to $15,000 more. Same with scarring.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development held a lengthy hearing on June 18 focused on workers’ compensation, independent contractor and classification issues, workplace safety, warehouse worker protections, extreme temperature protections, retaliation against injured workers, and workplace bullying. Committee chairs outlined procedures for the hybrid hearing and noted that members would be leaving intermittently for floor votes. Testimony also touched on a bill to expand workers’ compensation disfigurement benefits by removing the current $15,000 cap and extending coverage beyond scars on the hands, neck, and face. A major theme was workplace safety in warehouses and in extreme heat or cold. Teamsters, warehouse workers, and labor advocates described high injury rates, strict quotas, lack of water, inadequate ventilation, frozen or missing safety equipment, and pressure to work through heat waves and snowstorms. Supporters urged favorable reports on bills protecting warehouse workers and requiring employers to adopt heat- and cold-safety plans, while the NFIB opposed the temperature bill as overly prescriptive and burdensome for small businesses. Sen. Edwards, Sen. Roche, Rep. O’Day, and others argued that the measures are needed to prevent heat illness, provide shade, water, rest breaks, training, and emergency plans, and to cover all workers regardless of immigration status. Another major subject was the “Act to Protect Injured Workers,” backed by labor groups, immigrant worker centers, legal services organizations, and individual workers. Witnesses said employers often retaliate after injuries by threatening deportation, lying about how injuries occurred, delaying care, or firing workers, and they supported stronger anti-retaliation enforcement, multilingual notices, and a rebuttable presumption of retaliation within 90 days of protected activity. The Mass AFL-CIO and immigrant advocacy groups supported the bill and opposed measures they said would weaken employee classification standards. Testimony also supported a funeral-benefits bill to raise workers’ compensation death-benefit reimbursement for burial and funeral costs, based on a family’s experience after a workplace fatality. The committee heard additional testimony on workplace bullying bills, with some witnesses urging a new legal duty for employers to prevent and respond to bullying, while others described the harms of toxic workplaces and the lack of effective remedies.