Transcript Highlights:

• fermentation and cell cultivation proteins that are aimed at giving the same nutritional and sensory profiles
• And sensory profiles as animal-based proteins.
• important for production so they can be scaled, and will also taste good and have a great nutritional profile

Summary: The Select Committee on Alternative Protein Innovation held its second informational hearing at UCLA, focusing on California’s alternative protein sector and the role of public institutions in expanding plant-based, fermentation, and cultivated protein options. Chair Ash Kalra opened by highlighting prior state investments in UC research centers, the importance of student engagement, and the hearing’s three panels: reducing the carbon footprint of institutional meals, addressing market challenges to scaling alternative proteins, and advancing future food research and workforce development. Assemblymember Isaac Bryan also briefly praised the committee’s work and its relevance to climate and health goals. The first panel featured Friends of the Earth, UCLA Dining, and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. Megan Jones described California school food efforts, including technical assistance and microgrants that helped districts expand plant-based meals, reduce water and carbon footprints, and improve student satisfaction. Pete Angelese explained how UCLA Dining uses concept-driven venues, sustainable purchasing, and marketing nudges to increase plant-forward choices, while Dr. Michelle Wood outlined Los Angeles County’s 2024–2025 board motions to expand plant-based options in county food venues and programs, including joining the World Resources Institute’s Cool Food Pledge. Committee members asked about costs, procurement, and how student and consumer behavior can be influenced. The second panel addressed market barriers to scaling alternative proteins. Zach Weston and Daniel Gertner emphasized that the sector faces a cost-and-scale trap, high capital needs, and financing gaps, and they recommended grants, tax credits, loan guarantees, procurement commitments, and workforce development. T.K. Pillen of Beyond Meat argued that the category has faced a recent downturn due to consumer skepticism, industry attacks on “fake meat,” and pricing pressures, and said the key to renewed growth is increasing demand through better taste, health, pricing, and messaging around “plant protein.” Panelists also discussed hidden subsidies and structural advantages for conventional animal agriculture, and committee members raised questions about iBank loan guarantees and supply chain challenges. The final panel highlighted UCLA’s research and training efforts. Dr. Amy Roet described the Future Food Fellows program, which trains students across disciplines in science, communication, leadership, and community-building, and supports research on scalable, safe, and nutritious alternative proteins. Corinne Smith shared her cultivated meat research and student leadership in the Alternative Proteins Project at UCLA. Dr. Janet Tomiyama presented consumer psychology findings showing that disgust, gender norms, and terminology strongly affect acceptance, with “plant protein” and “complementary proteins” testing better than “fake meat.” The hearing concluded with support for continued public investment, clearer messaging, and expanded education and workforce pipelines to help California remain a leader in alternative protein innovation.

Transcript Highlights:

• But our portfolio is structured with a conservative investment profile.
• Then a growth-at-all-costs profile.
• But right now, we do have a conservative view on that investment profile.

Committee: House Investments & Pensions Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• To set bond in difficult cases, high-profile cases specifically.
• We'll give lenient bond on high-profile cases with no transparency.
• And I appreciate that. at least in the high profile ones to be handled by a judge.

Bills: SB9 , SB1047 , SB1048 , SJR17 , SJR49 , SB40 , SJR1 , SJR5 , SB 9 , SB 40 , SJR 1

Committee: Senate Criminal Justice

Transcript Highlights:

• If you're dying of cancer, you will take... a drug with that kind of risk profile.
• If you're telling me 99% of women did okay, but 1% died, I would say that is not a beneficial risk profile
• So your name and your profile helped fuel a measles outbreak.

Committee: Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• It encourages profiling to the discomfort of the very few people who are gender non-conforming in our
• It encourages profiling to the discomfort of the very few people who are gender non-conforming in our
• ><c> discomfort</c> encourages profiling to the discomfort encourages profiling to the discomfort of<
• </c><03:56:10.960><c> Look</c> that they're going to be profiled.
• Look that they're going to be profiled.

Transcript Highlights:

• when unaccountable rogue agencies are partnering with tech companies like Blenter to surveil and profile
• when unaccountable rogue agencies are partnering with tech companies like Blenter to surveil and profile
• when unaccountable rogue agencies are partnering with tech companies like Blenter to surveil and profile
• He was on a field trip with his classmates, and local police profiled him. Yes, they did.
• </c> his classmates and local police profiled his classmates and local police profiled him.<01:06:44.319

Bills: HB2056 , HR4 , SB331

Keywords: immigration, sanctuary jurisdiction, federal compliance, District of Columbia, law enforcement, House of Representatives, election, Speaker, Clerk, Congress, fentanyl, controlled substances, drug trafficking, public health, research regulations

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't know if you all have ever read the book Profiles in Courage, John F. Kennedy. In 2015, Mr.
• Kennedy said that in Profiles in Courage.
• a page out of that book of I saw some of my colleagues yesterday take a page out of that book of Profiles
• When that board lights up, I hope some of you other ones take a page out of Profiles in Courage.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't know if you all have ever read the book Profiles in Courage, John F. Kennedy. In 2015, Mr.
• Kennedy said that in Profiles in Courage.
• a page out of that book of I saw some of my colleagues yesterday take a page out of that book of Profiles
• When that board lights up, I hope some of you others take a page out of Profiles in Courage, not because

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

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't know if you all have ever read the book Profiles in Courage, John F. Kennedy. In 2015, Mr.
• Kennedy said that in Profiles in Courage.
• page out of that book of I saw some of my colleagues yesterday, take a page out of that book of Profiles
• When that board light up, I hope some of you other ones, that you take a page out of Profiles in Courage

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituting identical House Bill 1D, to establish Florida’s congressional districts. The opening prayer and Pledge of Allegiance were followed by procedural remarks, then extensive floor discussion focused almost entirely on the redistricting proposal, its timing, and its legal basis. Senator Gaetz, explaining the bill, said the Governor had transmitted the map two days earlier, argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is not prohibited by law, and said the Governor’s stated reasons were to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts. He also said the legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal. Much of the debate centered on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Louisiana decision and whether it affected Florida’s Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators Smith, Rouson, Sharief, Polsky, Arrington, Bracey Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and others questioned the short notice, lack of public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony, and whether the map diluted minority voting strength or fragmented communities of interest. Gaetz repeatedly said he was not offering legal opinions, that the Governor’s counsel believed the Fair Districts race-based provisions were inconsistent with federal law, and that any legal challenge would be for the courts. He also said the Governor’s mapmaker reported using census and demographic data, along with political data as one of many inputs, and claimed the map’s compactness was comparable to the current map. A motion by Senator Smith to temporarily postpone consideration of the bill failed on a 12-23 vote. After the Senate returned from a 30-minute break to review the new Supreme Court decision, debate continued. The chamber then substituted HB 1D for SB 8D, read the House bill, and advanced it to third reading. The transcript ends during debate on final passage, with Senators Rouson and Bernard speaking in opposition and arguing the map was procedurally rushed, legally vulnerable, and politically motivated.

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't know if you all have ever read the book Profiles in Courage by John F. Kennedy.
• Kennedy said that in Profiles in Courage.
• a page out of that book of I saw some of my colleagues yesterday take a page out of that book of Profiles
• When that board light up, I hope some of you other ones take a page out of Profiles in Courage.

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't know if you all have ever read the book Profiles in Courage, John F. Kennedy. In 2015, Mr.
• Kennedy said that in Profiles in Courage.
• a page out of that book of I saw some of my colleagues yesterday take a page out of that book of Profiles
• When that board light up, I hope some of you other ones that you take a page out of Profiles in Courage

Transcript Highlights:

• In support of that license, we've done some work on emergency planning zones based on risk profiles.
• Planning zones based on risk profiles. These reactors are extremely small.
• They look at energy profiles of 50, 60, 70 years in their strategic planning.
• We start and stop the electrolysis units according to these use profiles.

Committee: Joint Advanced Nuclear Energy Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• In support of that license, we've done some work on emergency planning zones based on risk profiles.
• Planning zones based on risk profiles. These reactors are extremely small.
• They look at energy profiles of 50, 60, 70 years in their strategic planning.
• We start and stop the electrolysis units according to these use profiles.

Summary: The meeting opened with remarks about the value of public engagement and the availability of presentation materials, then moved into a series of technical briefings from Idaho National Laboratory staff. Joe Renovitz described recent federal and DOE efforts to streamline nuclear regulation for advanced reactors, including NRC Part 53 and upcoming Part 57 rulemaking, DOE authorization updates, crosswalks between DOE and NRC requirements, and use of AI to speed licensing communications and document review. He emphasized that the goal is to align safety standards for advanced technologies, reduce rework for developers, and support deployment for commercial, defense, and research uses. In response to questions, he said there is no current plan to merge agencies, but there is more information-sharing and embedded NRC staff at DOE facilities; he also noted public outreach is supported through groups like GAIN and NEI. David Tolman then discussed the nuclear fuel cycle, covering uranium mining, conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication, spent fuel storage, transportation, disposal, and recycling. He explained high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), DOE’s HALEU Availability Program, and the need to expand domestic enrichment, deconversion, and transportation capacity to support advanced reactors and the 2050 nuclear growth goal. He also reviewed used fuel management, including on-site storage at operating and shutdown reactors, the Center for Used Fuel Research at INL, a high-burnup research cask project, and the long-term repository question, which he said is ultimately political as well as technical. He outlined reprocessing approaches—aqueous/Purex, pyrochemical, and fluoride volatility—describing INL’s work on electrochemical processing of EBR-II fuel and noting industry interest from several companies in recycling technologies. Ashley Shields presented on AI for nuclear applications, describing INL’s use of generative AI, high-performance computing, and digital-twin tools to accelerate reactor design, licensing, operations, and materials development. She highlighted the Prometheus effort to pursue highly automated reactor design and operation, the large documentation burden for reactor licensing, and ongoing work on autonomous control, remote operation, and AI-assisted materials qualification through the Vulcan challenge and related data platforms. In questions, she said AI tools are used under data-governance and security controls, with different models chosen for different tasks, and argued that software engineers and human oversight remain necessary. The session ended with a brief recess announcement and a transition to a later presentation on critical minerals and materials.

Transcript Highlights:

• frameworks to existing data to identify those age groups based on a user's interactions with other profiles
• a a a user's interactions<00:33:06.480><c> with</c><00:33:06.760><c> other</c><00:33:07.040><c> profiles
• </c><00:33:08.280><c> and</c> interactions with other profiles and interactions with other profiles and

Transcript Highlights:

• detail about each one of the programs or the initiatives that we have and what we think the spending profile
• So a spending profile by fiscal year for each of the major initiatives, if you want to put it in bigger
• detail about each one of the programs or the initiatives that we have and what we think the spending profile
• So a spending profile by fiscal year for each of the major initiatives, if you want to put it in bigger

Committee: House Subcommittee on Appropriations - General Administration

Transcript Highlights:

• detail about each one of the programs or the initiatives that we have and what we think the spending profile
• So a spending profile by fiscal year for each of the major initiatives, if you want to put it in bigger
• detail about each one of the programs or the initiatives that we have and what we think the spending profile
• So a spending profile by fiscal year for each of the major initiatives, if you want to put it in bigger

Committee: House Subcommittee on Appropriations - General Administration

Summary: The subcommittee held an informational hearing on the Information Technology Services Division (ITSD) within the Office of Administration, with no quorum present and no formal action taken. Chair Voss said the purpose was to review ITSD’s programs, budget needs, and future plans, and members emphasized the value of an informed appropriator. Representative Riggs cautioned that the state should avoid jeopardizing federal broadband funding and asked that AI-related work remain consistent with federal expectations. ITSD leadership, including CIO John Loren and Deputy CIO Tara Damp, outlined the division’s scope and recent modernization efforts. They said ITSD supports 15 executive agencies plus the governor and lieutenant governor, manages about 1,200 production software solutions, handles roughly 35,000 help desk requests per month, and defends against billions of cyberattacks monthly. They highlighted investments in layered security, data center and network redundancy, a unified Microsoft 365 environment, modern development tools, and portal platforms. Damp reviewed the history of IT consolidation, noting budget reductions after 2007, then increased investment beginning in 2020 and especially with ARPA funds in fiscal 2023. Members asked about spending projections, subscription-based licensing, procurement modernization, and the role of non-consolidated agencies such as MoDOT and Conservation. The committee also discussed future funding needs and benchmarking. ITSD said its current spending is about $287 million, with a projected ongoing need of about $345 million to maintain and modernize services, while Gartner comparisons suggested Missouri spends less per employee and as a share of operating budget than peer states. Members asked for more detailed fiscal-year spending profiles for major initiatives and for clarification on what is and is not included in the projections, including Social Services and HR1-related work. ITSD said it would provide additional detail. A major portion of the hearing focused on AI strategy and governance. Tim Marsheski, ITSD’s director of AI and innovation, described a cautious, pilot-based approach centered on secure use, human oversight, and data governance. He cited examples such as an internal HR chatbot that reduced average response time from about 45 minutes to two minutes, pilots with DESE data transformation, and efforts to use AI for code assistance, document scanning, and workflow support. Members asked about workforce impacts, training, closed versus open models, and whether AI could help with auditing and fiscal analysis. ITSD said it is still early on workforce forecasting, but it is building governance, acceptable-use policies, and feedback loops to test tools, measure results, and scale only when they provide value and remain secure.

Transcript Highlights:

• publications that the LRC puts out from our Office of Educational Accountability is the district data profile
• 00:36:13.400><c> the</c><00:36:13.480><c> district</c><00:36:13.880><c> data</c><00:36:14.120><c> profile
• </c><00:36:15.200><c> If</c><00:36:15.240><c> anybody</c> is the district data profile.
• If anybody is the district data profile.

Committee: Senate Education

Transcript Highlights:

• And so, as we develop that persona or our profile for that student, that's how we target.
• and so, as we develop that persona or and so, as we develop that persona or our<00:12:17.480><c> profile
• > that</c><00:12:18.240><c> student,</c><00:12:18.880><c> that's</c><00:12:19.080><c> how</c> our profile
• for that student, that's how our profile for that student, that's how we<00:12:19.360><c> target.

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from its January 13 meeting and then moved through a large agenda of contracts and agreements, with members repeatedly voting to review items without objection. The chair noted the agenda included 227 contracts totaling about $89.5 million, all with vendors registered with the Secretary of State. Most items were approved after brief discussion and roll-call votes. Several contracts drew questions. Kentucky State University explained two four-month contracts tied to its online academic program: one for continued implementation support and one for marketing. University officials said the program is in a transition year under a management improvement plan, that the university owns the intellectual property, and that the marketing effort is aimed at growing enrollment in targeted programs such as business and social work. They reported online enrollment had grown from 74 students to 612, with an overall university enrollment of 2,872, and said the goal is to reach about 1,000 online students by fall. The committee approved both items, though Senator Douglas said he would keep watching university spending. The Department of Education presented a contract cancellation for administrative reviews of the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program. Officials said USDA changed the review requirement from every three years to every five years, making the outside contract unnecessary because internal staff can now handle the work. The committee approved the cancellation. The Transportation Cabinet also explained an increase to a professional services contract for engineering work on a section of KY 54 in Owensboro, describing it as preliminary design and commissioning work for a multi-section roadway project; the committee approved that item as well. The Kentucky Lottery Corporation sought approval for an amendment tied to its iLottery platform. Officials said the increase reflected higher sales volume, since the contract structure causes prize and platform-related expenses to rise as sales grow. The committee approved the amendment. The Department of Public Health also discussed a perinatal psychiatry consultation program funded by a five-year federal HRSA grant; members raised concerns about what would happen if federal support changes, but no action beyond discussion was noted in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• it does that aren't being stated, and that has to do with the fact that it essentially creates a profile
• And so by doing that, creating that profile, that is what ends up violating the Fourth Amendment because
• public can't I even get their own records they have no idea what's in there it also doesn't prohibit profiling
• Chair, Senator, because we shouldn't be building profiles off of folks based on where they travel.

Summary: The committee first took up SB 1114, which would appropriate $1 million to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office to investigate patient brokering in behavioral health and substance abuse treatment. Sponsor Sen. Werner described patient brokering as a continuing abuse tied to the state’s Medicaid fraud crisis, especially affecting Native Americans, and said the county attorney had the capacity to handle statewide oversight. The bill was moved and received a do pass recommendation on a 9-0-1 vote. The committee then considered SB 1111, as amended by a strike-everything amendment, to create statewide rules for automated license plate readers. Supporters from law enforcement said ALPRs are important for investigations, missing persons, stolen vehicles, and violent crimes, and argued the bill adds needed guardrails and training requirements. Opponents, including the ACLU, Institute for Justice, and private citizens, warned the systems enable mass surveillance, can be inaccurate, and raise Fourth Amendment and privacy concerns; they also objected to broad terms like “legitimate” law enforcement purposes and the lack of a clear retention limit. The committee adopted the amendment and then gave SB 1111, as amended, a do pass recommendation by a 7-2-1 vote. Next, SB 1116, as amended, was heard to require behavioral health claim denials and appeals at AHCCCS to be reviewed by someone with relevant clinical experience. Sen. Werner said the bill responds to improper denials and appeals handled by staff without behavioral health expertise; AHCCCS was neutral but said the bill could create compliance and staffing issues because “relevant clinical experience” is not well defined. The committee adopted the amendment and passed the bill 10-0. SB 1122, also as amended, would bar AHCCCS from requiring prior authorization or 100% prepayment review for certain behavioral health services under the American Indian Health Plan unless a provider is on a corrective action plan; Werner said it was aimed at ensuring providers are paid and reducing patient brokering. The committee adopted the amendment and passed SB 1122 10-0. Finally, the committee heard SB 1072, which would appropriate ongoing state and Medicaid funds to DES for rate increases for home- and community-based services and room-and-board services for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, with reporting on workforce outcomes. Supporters from APAD and providers said the direct care workforce is in crisis, with large numbers of vacancies, overtime costs, and unassigned authorizations, and argued the funding is needed to retain staff and maintain care. Members discussed wage disparities, whether funds would reach caregivers, and the limits of legislative control over private provider pay, but no vote on SB 1072 was reached before the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• authority to require a capital amount higher than what's in the statute and based on the captive's risk profile
• the statute and based on the cap's uh in the statute and based on the cap's risk<00:29:48.640><c> profile
• 49.760><c> also</c><00:29:50.159><c> none</c><00:29:50.320><c> of</c><00:29:50.480><c> this</c> risk profile
• Um also none of this risk profile.

Bills: SB2004 , SB2039 , SB2042 , SB2043 , SB2044 , SB2132

Committee: Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection

Summary: The Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee opened its first hearing of the year with remarks from Chair Jared Kohole outlining hearing procedures, a two-minute testimony limit, rules for remote testimony and decorum, and a revised testimony-publication pilot that keeps 96-hour notice but returns to a standard 24-hour testimony deadline. He then moved through the agenda, beginning with SB 2004 on outdoor advertising, which would increase penalties for violations of billboard and outdoor advertising laws. Testimony on that measure was limited; Henry Curtis of Life of the Land was first up, and written support was noted from Hawaiian Electric and the Outdoor Circle. The committee then heard SB 2039 on election campaign finance, which would prohibit certain business entities from engaging in campaign finance activities. The Attorney General’s office offered comments and did not take a formal position at the hearing. Several proponents testified in support, including Josh Frost, Tom Moore of the Center for American Progress, Hapa/Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action, and Common Cause Hawaiʻi, all arguing the bill would curb corporate and dark-money influence and return elections to the people. Moore distinguished between regulating corporate “rights” and limiting corporate “powers,” and said the state can redefine the powers it grants corporations. In questions, Senator McKelvey asked whether the bill could be expanded to include unions; the Attorney General said he would need to get back with legal analysis, while Moore said his preferred approach would include all entities and that leaving out nonprofits or unions would create problems. Members also discussed whether the bill would affect PACs, and Moore explained that the proposal would prohibit corporate and dark-money flows into PACs while leaving individual political giving and existing political committees in place. The committee then moved on to the next measure. SB 2042, relating to insurance, was heard next. The bill would reduce the unimpaired minimum capital and surplus required of class 4 sponsored captive insurance companies under certain circumstances. The DCCA Insurance Division said it stood on its written testimony, and the Hawaii Captive Insurance Council testified in support, describing the change as a narrow, risk-based adjustment that would not affect the commissioner’s authority where actual risk resides and would help keep Hawaii competitive. The committee noted additional written support and proceeded without a vote or final action in the portion of the hearing provided.