Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Is there any discussion? Is there any discussion?
• Is there any discussion? Is there any discussion? Any reservation?
• Is there any discussion? Discussion, Senator Awana.
• Is there any discussion? discussion? discussion?
• </c> Is there any discussion? Is there any discussion?

Bills: SB1432, SB2024, SB2043, SB2060, SB2069, SB2153, SB2259, SB2319, SB2321, SB2338, SB2360, SB2396, SB2405, SB2407, SB2544, SB2550, SB2552, SB2578, SB2580, SB2607, SB2614, SB2671, SB2800, SB2805, SB2816, SB2835, SB2877, SB2892, SB2928, SB2934, SB3063, SB3199, SB3233, SB3325, HCR8, HCR10, HCR11, HCR13, HCR14, HCR18, HCR19, HCR22, HCR24, HCR31, HCR32, HCR33, HCR35, HCR54, HCR62, HCR63, HCR66, HCR67, HCR82, HCR83, HCR85, HCR91, HCR93, HCR94, HCR96, HCR98, HCR102, HCR104, HCR105, HCR106, HCR110, HCR111, HCR116, HCR117, HCR118, HCR121, HCR122, HCR123, HCR124, HCR125, HCR127, HCR128, HCR137, HCR139, HCR140, HCR141, HCR144, HCR146, HCR162, HCR165, HCR166, HCR173, HCR178, HCR179, HCR180, HCR181, HCR182, HCR185, HCR189, HCR191, HCR192, HCR193, HCR194, HCR200, HCR202, HCR6, HCR36, HCR42, HCR43, HCR44, HCR53, HCR57, HCR61, HCR64, HCR69, HCR84, HCR101, HCR103, HCR107, HCR112, HCR126, HCR136, HCR154, HCR161, HCR175, HCR186, HCR187, HCR188, HCR197, HCR203, HCR204, HCR206, HB1870, HB1588, HB2429, HB2386, HB2583, HB2361, HB2270, HB2137, HB1643, HB1682, HB1692, HB2078, HB1553, HB1667, HB1700, HB1728, HB2293, HB2096, HB1959, HB1511, HB1961, HB1858, HB1897, HB2088, HB2093, HB2279, HB2314, HB2505, HB2433, HB963, HB1705, HB1550, HB469, HB1334, HB1710, HB1737, HB1753, HB1881, HB2309, HB1713, HB1741, HB2062, HB463, HB1839, HB1664, HB2455, HB2417, HB1898, HB1573, HB1768, HB1962, HB2101, HB1782, HB2033, HB1518, HB1642, HB1752, HB2097, HB2282, HB1696, HB1823, HB1886, HB2152, HB2413, HB2503, HB1875, HB1519, HB1509, HB1628, HB1810, HB1990, HB2023, HB2540, HB1679, HB1888, HB2576, HB2592

Keywords: Kalaupapa, Kalawao, Molokai, Maui County, county consolidation, Hansen's disease, leprosy, Department of Health, DOH, patient residents, former patients, public health, transition planning, jurisdiction transfer, county governance, historical preservation, cultural preservation, environmental remediation, community input, Kalaupapa Settlement

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any discussion? Any seconded. Is there any discussion? Any objections?
• Further discussion?
• My discussion was just the discussion part, not the no-vote part.
• was just the discussion part, discussion was just the discussion part, not<00:08:37.039><c> the</c><
• We have had the discussion. discussion. discussion.

Bills: SB1432, SB2024, SB2043, SB2060, SB2069, SB2153, SB2259, SB2319, SB2321, SB2338, SB2360, SB2396, SB2405, SB2407, SB2544, SB2550, SB2552, SB2578, SB2580, SB2607, SB2614, SB2671, SB2800, SB2805, SB2816, SB2835, SB2877, SB2892, SB2928, SB2934, SB3063, SB3199, SB3233, SB3325, HCR8, HCR10, HCR11, HCR13, HCR14, HCR18, HCR19, HCR22, HCR24, HCR31, HCR32, HCR33, HCR35, HCR54, HCR62, HCR63, HCR66, HCR67, HCR82, HCR83, HCR85, HCR91, HCR93, HCR94, HCR96, HCR98, HCR102, HCR104, HCR105, HCR106, HCR110, HCR111, HCR116, HCR117, HCR118, HCR121, HCR122, HCR123, HCR124, HCR125, HCR127, HCR128, HCR137, HCR139, HCR140, HCR141, HCR144, HCR146, HCR162, HCR165, HCR166, HCR173, HCR178, HCR179, HCR180, HCR181, HCR182, HCR185, HCR189, HCR191, HCR192, HCR193, HCR194, HCR200, HCR202, HCR6, HCR36, HCR42, HCR43, HCR44, HCR53, HCR57, HCR61, HCR64, HCR69, HCR84, HCR101, HCR103, HCR107, HCR112, HCR126, HCR136, HCR154, HCR161, HCR175, HCR186, HCR187, HCR188, HCR197, HCR203, HCR204, HCR206, HB1870, HB1588, HB2429, HB2386, HB2583, HB2361, HB2270, HB2137, HB1643, HB1682, HB1692, HB2078, HB1553, HB1667, HB1700, HB1728, HB2293, HB2096, HB1959, HB1511, HB1961, HB1858, HB1897, HB2088, HB2093, HB2279, HB2314, HB2505, HB2433, HB963, HB1705, HB1550, HB469, HB1334, HB1710, HB1737, HB1753, HB1881, HB2309, HB1713, HB1741, HB2062, HB463, HB1839, HB1664, HB2455, HB2417, HB1898, HB1573, HB1768, HB1962, HB2101, HB1782, HB2033, HB1518, HB1642, HB1752, HB2097, HB2282, HB1696, HB1823, HB1886, HB2152, HB2413, HB2503, HB1875, HB1519, HB1509, HB1628, HB1810, HB1990, HB2023, HB2540, HB1679, HB1888, HB2576, HB2592

Keywords: Kalaupapa, Kalawao, Molokai, Maui County, county consolidation, Hansen's disease, leprosy, Department of Health, DOH, patient residents, former patients, public health, transition planning, jurisdiction transfer, county governance, historical preservation, cultural preservation, environmental remediation, community input, Kalaupapa Settlement

Transcript Highlights:

• Foster recused himself from discussions about these two projects.
• The results discussed prior to adopting desired future condition.
• What was discussed? Why did the board feel the need to go into executive session to discuss this?
• Why couldn't it be discussed out in the open?
• But I'm certainly open to those discussions.

Summary: The committee held a hearing on high-capacity groundwater wells proposed in Anderson, Henderson, and Houston counties, with members framing the issue as one of local water supply, fairness, and the need to modernize groundwater law while protecting private property rights. Opening remarks focused on the scale of the proposed Redtown Ranch and Pine Bliss projects, the potential export of tens of thousands of acre-feet of groundwater annually, and concerns that the applications lacked sufficient technical detail and could harm nearby landowners, cities, agriculture, and manufacturing. Members also noted the broader context of the recent flooding tragedy in central Texas and the Legislature’s intent to address water-related loss of life in the upcoming special session. Witnesses from the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts and the Texas Water Development Board explained the current groundwater management framework. They described groundwater conservation districts as the state’s preferred management method, the role of groundwater management areas and desired future conditions, and how the Water Development Board uses those conditions to calculate modeled available groundwater. They emphasized that districts rely on local data, monitoring wells, and planning processes, but that information is often more limited in areas without a district, where the rule of capture applies. Members pressed witnesses on recharge rates, export permits, subsidence, the effect of pumping on nearby wells, the age and real-time availability of model data, and whether the proposed project would exceed modeled available groundwater in some counties. TCEQ explained its limited oversight role over groundwater conservation districts, including inquiries, compliance actions, and, in extreme cases, dissolution authority. Water Development Board staff also outlined funding programs, saying the New Water Supply for Texas Fund is limited to projects such as brackish desalination, reuse, ASR, and other new-supply projects, and does not fund fresh groundwater exports alone. They said the project at issue had not applied for board funding. A water lawyer then testified on the rule of capture, ownership in place, and district regulation, arguing that districts must use permitting and other tools to manage production within modeled available groundwater and that the Legislature could consider additional authority over groundwater exports under current law.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any<00:11:28.000><c> discussion?</c> Any discussion? Any discussion?
• Any discussion? discussion? discussion? Any<00:46:03.800><c> objections?
• Any discussion? If not, final passage. Any discussion?
• Any discussion? If not, final passage. Any discussion?
• Any discussion? If not, final passage. Any discussion?

Keywords: Senate streaming session for Monday, March 23, 2026, 960, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any discussion? discussion? discussion?
• Is there any discussion? discussion? discussion?
• </c> Is there any discussion? Is there any discussion?
• </c> discussion or amendment? discussion or amendment?
• Um, I do agree with Senator Altiller that it is of a sensitive nature discussing a particular student

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But during all the discussions, I think this captures what we initially discussed better.
• But during all the discussions, I way.
• Makes the a good law discussed better.
• So, I them discussing the bill.
• </c> the U governor's office uh to discuss the U governor's office uh to discuss this<00:56:18.000><c

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Can you discuss any challenges or limitations the Sunset Commission?
• discussed with ERS.
• In addition to the reports that Oren has discussed, I'd like to discuss this report as well in the next
• In fact, there's discussions now.
• up discussing it further.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um well, discussion on the bill. >> I do. Um well, discussion on the bill.
• Um well, discussion on the bill. &gt;&gt; I do. Um well, discussion on the bill.
• further discussion?
• </c> the committee to discuss and amend. the committee to discuss and amend.
• </c> &gt;&gt; Any further discussion? &gt;&gt; Any further discussion?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We need to have the discussion.
• I also reached out to counsel for KPPPA to discuss the case, and he respectfully declined to discuss
• As you all know, a solicitation is very time-sensitive.
• And I anticipate that could be a lengthy discussion.
• I'd like to um make discussion. as much.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee first approved the May 12 minutes, then deferred item 285 on the routine personal service contract green list for Western Kentucky University to the July 2026 meeting. It also noted that several deferred university contracts had been withdrawn by the institutions, and then approved the remaining agenda items without objection, including personal service contracts, amendments, memoranda of agreement, Kentucky Entertainment incentive agreements, deferred items, and corrections, except for items pulled for further review. The main pulled item was a Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts contract supporting Fayette District Court’s juvenile treatment court through Fayette County Public Schools. Court officials explained that the program, created under Supreme Court rules in 2022, serves court-connected juveniles with mental health and related needs, operates at the courthouse, and uses a school-employed program manager funded through a pass-through arrangement with Fayette County Public Schools and the Urban County Government. They said the program has had over 100 referrals, accepted about half, and had at least 25 successful graduates, with 11 high school graduates among participants. Members asked about who pays for drug screens, family involvement, and what counts as successful completion; the officials said the Urban County Government’s Division of Youth Services pays for drug screens and services, and that parents must participate in classes and support services. The committee then approved the contract review, with some members explaining their votes in support and one member emphasizing the committee’s role in reviewing contracts in the public interest. The committee also reviewed two Auditor of Public Accounts contracts. The auditor’s representative said contract 11, with Vantage Point Solutions, will examine the Kentucky Communications Network Authority/Kentucky Wired network for $700,000, well below the $1.5 million appropriated, and that a report is expected before the 2027 regular session. Contract 12 funds a special examination of investment managers used by Kentucky’s retirement systems, prompted by a Legislative Oversight and Investigations request to assess whether investments tied to ESG factors are consistent with fiduciary duties; the representative said the retirement systems have been cooperative and that findings are expected on a similar timeline, with some flexibility built into the deadline. After questions about the Texas litigation referenced in the explanation, the committee approved both auditor contracts without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• believe it begins online, specifically what provisions in this bill would ensure that ecologically sensitive
• who's applying for benefits actually would have a chance to talk to someone and have those kinds of discussions

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• :14:35.680><c> file</c><00:14:35.920><c> number</c> discussion on Senate file number discussion on Senate
• I think further discussion. We're looking for further discussion.
• </c> Members, any additional discussion? Members, any additional discussion?
• Any other discussion?
• And and I love the discussion. choices. And and I love the discussion.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• of session, and I don’t have any trivia questions or chainsaw ideas about how we can have a big discussion
• questions we got during the rulemaking and concerns, and one that we share too, is how do we protect sensitive
• consideration of an extension of the reporting deadline to July 1st of 2027 or further legislative discussion

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:39:30.720><c> about</c> concussion there was no discussion about concussion there was no discussion
• </c> children standpoint um we also discussed children standpoint um we also discussed that<01:42:41.480
• Any discussion?
• Chair: "Further discussion?"
• </c> motion further discussion motion further discussion seeing<03:59:45.479><c> none</c><03:59:45.720

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Children and Family Law Committee opened its March 4 meeting with procedural announcements, including a deadline for any Minority Report, notice that the committee would not meet the following Tuesday because of town meeting day, and a preview of its March 18 agenda. The chair said that meeting would include hearings and executive sessions on HB 518, requiring DHHS to provide a detailed annual report of DCF costs, and HB 775, directing DHHS to seek proposals for supervised visitation centers; HB 553 was also slated for executive session. The committee also heard an update on Representative Grossman’s son, who remained in the PICU at Mass General. The main hearing was on HB 493, which would require child abuse and neglect education for physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants as a condition of licensure. Representative Alicia Gregg presented the bill and an amendment reducing the required training from two hours to one hour, saying the goal was to improve recognition of abuse and prevent both missed cases and false accusations. Cassandra Sanchez, the state Child Advocate, strongly supported the bill, describing a 2020 review of nine cases of non-ambulatory infants with serious injuries and later system mapping that identified gaps in medical recognition; she said the training should be part of existing continuing education hours and that voluntary uptake had been limited. Dr. Michael Matos of Wolfeboro Pediatrics also testified in support. Ben Bradley of the New Hampshire Hospital Association opposed legislating the requirement, saying hospitals already train staff and that the legislature should not single out one topic for statutory mandate when other reporting obligations are handled differently. In questioning, committee members asked whether the hour would be part of existing continuing education, whether hospitals already provide similar training, and whether the bill should be placed in the continuing medical education statute instead of child protection law. Bradley said hospital members already provide annual training and collaborate with proponents, but did not support putting the requirement in statute. Sanchez said the bill was intended to use one of the hours already required for training, though members noted that the bill text did not clearly say so. The committee also heard broader testimony about the Family Division of Circuit Court, including a proposal to create a subcommittee to study more difficult issues such as pre-trial counseling, evidentiary practices, and domestic violence-related cases, with the Speaker appointing members to that subcommittee.

Transcript Highlights:

• ><01:21:04.800><c> because</c> small groupoup discussions because small groupoup discussions because
• ,</c> the full board for review, discussion, the full board for review, discussion, and<01:49:17.280>
• </c> &gt;&gt; All those Any further discussion? &gt;&gt; All those Any further discussion?
• >> Any further discussion?
• So, we we discussed an too many ways.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I have a time-sensitive resolution. Are there any objections to suspending the rules?
• and and had discussions and um and<01:10:06.400><c> so</c><01:10:06.640><c> there's</c><01:10:06.880
• </c><01:21:46.000><c> how</c> canvasing board will have to discuss how canvasing board will have to discuss
• With that in mind, I want to offer an amendment, and we've discussed it. I've given it to you.
• </c> amendment and uh we've discussed it. amendment and uh we've discussed it.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, um, as has been discussed, some... discussed, this would be an expansion of discussed, this would
• Further discussion.
• Further discussion?
• Further discussion?
• </c> to make those discussions. to make those discussions. Further<04:25:27.199><c> discussion.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We had a lot of discussion about AI, about the bill, how it fits into these regulated professions, how
• And then we looked at opening it up to, in discussions with OPLC, we looked at opening it up maybe into
• There wasn't an opportunity for discussion, for explanation. It was just flat out denied.
• There wasn't an opportunity for discussion, for explanation. It was just flat out denied.
• I talked about collaborative discussion.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh so that is a big discussion.
• Uh so that is a big discussion.
• . discussion. discussion.
• </c><01:46:47.760><c> We</c> discussion. Thank you all very much. We discussion.
• </c> that we're discussing today? that we're discussing today?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: House Finance Division 3 met in work session and opened with procedural remarks from the chair about the committee’s schedule, deadlines, and recommendation options, noting the meeting was advisory and no votes were expected. The first bill discussed, House Bill 1569, concerned repealing the directive to sell the Anna Philbrook Center for Children property in Concord. Testimony from DHHS and New Hampshire Hospital focused on whether the property could be subdivided, the relationship to Senate Bill 572, the status of the city of Concord’s first right of refusal, and the practical effects of a sale. Witnesses said the $5 million sale estimate was a budget assumption, that moving staff and equipment would create some relocation costs, and that the center had required significant recent maintenance and renovation spending. Members also discussed the number of transitional housing beds at the site, the temporary nature of those beds, and whether the property should remain available given hospital workforce and service needs. The committee then turned to House Bill 661, which had been recommitted for further review after new information emerged. The chair summarized federal developments, including a December 2025 ACF letter and a related executive order, as well as a federal HHS press release about states diverting foster youths’ Social Security survivor benefits. Representative Walner explained that amendment 3055H had been drafted to move the bill forward in smaller steps, with a fiscal note requested on the amendment because the original bill was viewed as too large and expensive. Members discussed whether the committee had received copies of the amendment and whether federal guidance or funding had changed the policy landscape. The discussion also included broader questions about foster youth benefits and whether federal action would support state implementation. One member cited ACF language stating that only 11 states had enacted policies to stop interception of survivor benefits and that technical assistance would be available to the remaining states. The meeting remained in work-session mode throughout, with no votes taken and no final recommendations made during the portion provided. The chair indicated the committee could return to the bills later in the month.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> but we didn't really have a discussion but we didn't really have a discussion about<00:24:04.640
• </c><00:46:51.920><c> You</c> discussion. Mr. Watson, it is you. You discussion. Mr.
• Anything that we can discuss?
• </c><01:31:44.000><c> a</c> um if the Senate could just discuss a um if the Senate could just discuss
• </c> happy to have a healthy discussion happy to have a healthy discussion around<01:34:30.000><c> this

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Higher Education Finance and Policy Conference Committee met publicly to compare House and Senate positions on the higher education budget, with the chairs emphasizing transparency and alternating gavel control. Nonpartisan fiscal staff walked through a spreadsheet of differences across the Office of Higher Education and Minnesota State, including major items such as state grants, childcare grants, work study, tribal college grants, emergency assistance grants, hunger-free campus grants, student parent support, direct admissions, paramedic scholarships, and several medical residency and fellowship programs. The House and Senate also differed on administrative funding, campus sexual assault reporting, and a House FY25 cancellation that would be carried forward. Members discussed several of the larger policy and funding choices. The Senate explained its increase for Minitex as support for operating costs and statewide access to information. The House explained its cuts to student parent support and other items as necessary to work within a zero target and to prioritize direct aid to students, while the Senate said it focused on direct appropriations and access-related programs. On hunger-free campus grants and emergency assistance grants, the Senate said it was changing the distribution method and direct appropriations rather than reducing the overall money, while the House noted differences in whether nonprofit institutions remained included. The committee also reviewed Senate-only additions and reductions in Minnesota State, including free course materials, Lake Superior College remediation, and changes to the Kids on Campus appropriation. A representative from Lake Superior College testified that the PAS remediation funding would help address contamination issues at an emergency training site near Lake Superior and that the money was shifted from the Kids on Campus initiative. No final conference agreement or vote was taken in the portion of the meeting provided; the committee continued discussing differences and testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, veteran we were just discussing.
• ,</c> the revolutionary war, is discussed, the revolutionary war, is discussed, not<01:08:48.159><c>
• :50.719><c> this</c> not derided, but discussed about this not derided, but discussed about this was<
• </c> about that veteran we discussed today. about that veteran we discussed today.
• </c> throughout this debate, we discussed throughout this debate, we discussed different<01:19:47.679

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Wednesday, May 20, 2026, 1012, house, all