Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you so much for being here and seeing no further public testimony.
• There are no amendments were in public testimony home.
• Seeing no further public testimony members. We're in debate seeing no debate.
• There are no amendments were in public testimony.
• We have no amendments and no public testimony and we're in debate seeing no debate.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are going to go into public testimony on the bill.
• quite a few, but since we had no questions, it looks like I'm going to not have to limit public testimony
• Limit public testimony at this moment.
• don't want to reiterate some of the things that we're talking about, and you've heard from other testimony
• As we indicated, and I did at the top of my testimony, we'd ask you, unfortunately, to oppose this bill

Summary: The Civil Justice and Claims Subcommittee considered one bill, HB 603, which would repeal section 768.21(8), the Florida medical negligence wrongful death exception often referred to by supporters as the “Free Kill” law. The sponsor argued the current statute unfairly bars certain families—especially adult children or parents of unmarried adults without minor children—from recovering non-economic damages when a loved one dies from medical negligence, while such damages are available in other wrongful death cases. Supporters, including family members, AARP, and some legal advocates, testified that the law is discriminatory and denies equal access to justice for grieving families and vulnerable adults. Opponents, including physicians, hospital and insurer representatives, and business groups, argued that repeal would increase malpractice exposure, raise premiums, worsen access to care, and accelerate physician retirements or departures from Florida. Several urged that if the bill moves forward, it should be paired with caps on non-economic damages to balance the impact on the health care system. Supporters countered that negligence must still be proven, that the law creates unequal treatment, and that existing tort reforms have not lowered premiums. The sponsor closed by rejecting claims that the bill is “jackpot justice” and emphasizing that families deserve court access and accountability. After debate, the committee voted on HB 603 and passed it 16-2. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have several witnesses here today, so to be respectful of everyone's time, we will be limiting testimony
• families that have been in the shrimp industry for generations and generations. ...And you'll hear testimony
• Thank you for your testimony. I appreciate it. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, the chair called...
• This will be my fastest testimony ever. So I'm Mark Milton.
• He texted me at 2 a.m. that he was ill, but you will be receiving written testimony of his experiences

Bills: HB1958, HB2031, HB2879, HB3285, HB3995, HB4487, HB4558, HB4560, HB4876, HB4899, HB5212, HB5317, HB5543, HB5567, SB1333

Keywords: firearm possession, tenant rights, landlord regulations, civil penalties, property code, justified use of force, deadly force, property rights, home defense, smart devices, data privacy, personal data collection, user consent, mobile application, data transparency, HOA, property owners association, property owners' association, Texas Property Code, Chapter 202

Transcript Highlights:

• NUMBER OF TURNS CARDS I MADE LIMIT DEBATE TO PROVIDE EVERYONE WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE THEIR TESTIMONY
• THAT IS COVERED IN THE BILL. >> Chair Canady: SEE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC TESTIMONY
• IS THERE PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON BACK ON THE BILL AS AMENDED. IS THERE PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THE BILL?
• WE HAVE CONCLUDED PUBLIC TESTIMONY WE ARE NOW OPEN FOR DEBATE.
• I HAD TESTIMONY ABOUT WELL, MY DAUGHTER HAS TO ALLOW ME TO END THE PORTAL.

Transcript Highlights:

• airlines not having to take their planes out of state to fuel in order to avoid the tax, which we heard testimony
• Seeing none, is there public testimony on the amendment? We have public testimony.
• Any other public testimony? Seeing none, is there debate on the amendment?
• Is there any public testimony on the bill as amended? We have several here.
• That's the end of public testimony. Members, we're in debate.

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee met on April 16, 2025, with one agenda item: PCB WMC-2502, the committee’s tax package. Chair Duggan presented the bill as a broad tax measure covering sales tax, tourist development taxes, ad valorem/VAB procedures, affordable housing property tax changes, tangible personal property, special assessments, fuel taxes, communication services taxes, corporate income tax updates, pari-mutuel/card room taxes, local incentives, and a redistribution of horse industry trust fund money. He also noted emergency rulemaking authority for the Department of Revenue and estimated a recurring state impact of $34.6 million in FY 2025-26. Members questioned several provisions, including the aviation fuel tax repeal, the delay of the natural gas fuel tax, the extension of the local communication services tax freeze, the charitable trust corporate income tax clarification, the reduction in card room taxes, and the affordable housing changes tied to the Live Local Act. Public testimony included support from airlines, UPS, child care management, and others, while the Florida Restaurant and Lodging Association opposed the lifeguard/TDT change, the Florida Association of Counties and Florida League of Cities opposed the missing-middle exemption changes, and local government representatives raised concerns about revenue impacts and the loss of local opt-out authority. The committee also adopted Amendment 1 by Representative Rizzo, which limits certain special assessments on RV parks when based on square footage. During debate, members split on some provisions but generally supported the package, with comments focused on aviation competitiveness, preschool assessment relief, lifeguard funding, affordable housing, and the horse industry funding shift. Representative Duggan closed by emphasizing that the bill was only the beginning of the process and would continue through conference and floor consideration. The committee then voted 16-1 to report PCB WMC-2502 favorably, with Representative Alvarez voting no.

Transcript Highlights:

• witnesses here today, as you can tell, so to be respectful of everyone's time, we'll be limiting testimony
• But we listen to you and we get a written testimony as well. We record it.
• I've submitted 12 copies of my testimony and a resolution from Fort Bend County Commissioners Court in
• Thank you to the Vice Chair and members for hearing my testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Bills: HB2963, HB3005, HB3287, HB3288, HB3289, HB3290, HB3344, HB3712, HB3862, HB3874, HB4196, HB4308, HB4901, HB4984

Keywords: digital equipment, repair rights, manufacturers, maintenance, consumer rights, construction contracts, payment regulations, public works, dispute resolution, audit procedures, construction, trust funds, mechanic's lien, contractor, subcontractor, residential properties, disputes, payment obligations, accountability, payment disputes

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 3862, which would restrict social media app use for minors and limit smartphone/social media access in classrooms. Supporters, including representatives from Champions for Childhood, argued that smartphones and social media are linked to addiction, distraction, cyberbullying, and worsening youth mental health, and said the bill would help parents and schools protect children. After testimony, the committee left HB 3862 pending. Members then heard HB 3712, a construction retainage bill that would stop owners from withholding reserved funds on specially fabricated materials once they are delivered, approved, and warranted, while still allowing retainage for labor and installation. Witnesses from the precast concrete industry said current retainage practices delay payment for years and create financial risk for subcontractors and suppliers. The bill was left pending after closing. The committee also heard HB 2963, a right-to-repair bill requiring manufacturers to provide parts, tools, and information for owners and independent repair providers, with carve-outs for medical devices, vehicles covered by existing repair agreements, trade secrets, and security protections. Support came from consumer, environmental, repair, and policy groups, while one witness from Safelite was neutral and urged removal of the MOU reference for auto manufacturers. HB 2963 was left pending. The committee also heard HB 4308, which would create county industrial development districts to attract industrial employers and finance infrastructure through local elections and a board structure. Supporters, including the Fort Bend County commissioner, said the bill would help counties diversify tax bases and create jobs; the bill was left pending. Later, the committee took up several pending bills and voted to report HB 74, HB 112, HB 2214, HB 3016, HB 3133, HB 3173, HB 3807, HB 4063, HB 4115, HB 5008, and HB 2652 favorably to the full House, with some sent to the Local and Consent Calendars. The committee also heard HB 3874 on construction contract transparency and HB 4196 on creating a task force to modernize manufacturing, both of which were left pending. Finally, the committee heard HB 3344, which would create a licensing and regulatory framework for re-roofing contractors; supporters said it would curb storm-chasing and protect homeowners, while one roofing contractor opposed it as too restrictive and argued existing fraud laws are sufficient. HB 3344 was also left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• I want to thank our witnesses in advance of their testimony for joining us today for this part of our
• Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give to the subcommittee will be the truth,
• I can't think of a better testimonial for the America Act.
• If you take away one thing from my testimony today, I hope it would be this.
• Now, your testimony mentioned that businesses from time to time will voluntarily... break themselves

Keywords: antitrust, competition policy, digital advertising, monopoly, America Act, big tech, consumer rights

Summary: The meeting, titled 'Big Fixes, Big Tech', marked the first hearing of the Senate antitrust competition policy and consumer rights subcommittee in the 119th Congress. Chairman Lee opened the session focusing on the urgent need for effective solutions regarding anti-competitive behavior among major tech firms like Google and Facebook, highlighting several ongoing court cases regarding monopolistic practices in the digital advertising and search markets. Key discussions included the limitations imposed on small businesses and innovation due to the dominance of these tech giants, with many testimonies advocating for stronger legislative measures, including the America Act. The act aims to disrupt the monopolistic capabilities of these firms and restore competitive integrity in the marketplace, which has suffered under their oppressive market control.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we will move to testimony, and I will open it up to the public who wishes to testify to the DE2 amendment
• Representative Huot, as you know from previous testimony, we have folks in the insurance industry who
• :07:06.479> know<00:07:06.639> from<00:07:06.880> previous<00:07:07.280> testimony
• ,<00:07:07.840> we as you know from previous testimony, we as you know from previous testimony
• This is language that we were working with staff based on the feedback that we got from the testimony

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you again for the testimony today, members.
• Free keys, and yet, you know, I'm sure you're seeing a large amount of testimony here, written testimony
• I think the question remains on the key issue, as there's been conflicting testimony and some challenges
• Hello, please introduce yourselves for the record as you proceed with your testimony.
• Thank you very much; I appreciate your testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• WE ARE GOING TO GO TO OUR PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
• I CHOOSE NOT TO CELEBRATE MY FAMILY FIGHTING FOR THE CONFEDERACY. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.
• AN ENLIGHTENING ONE FOR HER AND I URGE YOU ALL TO VOTE AGAINST THIS BILL. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY
• THAT IS NOT RIGHT AT ALL. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.
• MONUMENTS BUILT IN THE 20s AND 30s THAT DO NOT PROPERLY CELEBRATE THOSE PEOPLE. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's used for a judge, especially if they're convincing enough with a lawyer or testimony that...
• They said that based on the evidence and the testimony, the protective order was denied, despite the
• I appreciate your testimony. Our next witness that is registered is Ms.
• Seeing no one, then we'll close the testimony and turn it back to the Chairman.
• Seeing none, we'll go to our testimony.

Bills: HB809, HB 1193, HB1916, HB2558, HB1973, HB2350, HB2399, HB2340, HB 116, HB330, HB2496, HB116

Keywords: digitized signature, waiver of citation, marriage dissolution, electronic notarization, family law, HB 1193, informal marriage, common-law marriage, declaration of informal marriage, confidentiality, privacy, county clerk, vital statistics unit, Family Code, Health and Safety Code, marriage records, public records, personally identifying information, PII, legal representative

Transcript Highlights:

• For this hearing, we will be limiting testimony to three minutes each for two witnesses on each side
• Before we begin with the remainder of the agenda, I'll remind everyone that we're limiting testimony
• , that testimony will effectively be off limits to discovery, just like a privilege.
• And I want to address just one quick thing that was brought up in supporting testimony.
• With With me today to provide testimony is Cassie Mancini, legislative advocate for the California School

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement met for its first hearing of the session, adopted committee rules, and heard several labor-related bills. The chair reviewed hearing procedures, including limits on testimony and expectations for orderly conduct. Members then took up measures affecting public employee bargaining, contracting, confidentiality, school employee benefits, pay stub information, and state correctional health staffing. AB 672 would require public employers to notify PERB when filing court actions involving statutes PERB administers and allow PERB to intervene; it drew support from SEIU, AFSCME, school employees, labor groups, and no opposition, and was passed out of committee. AB 283 would move IHSS bargaining from the county to the state level; providers and recipients testified about low wages, long delays in bargaining, and care access concerns, while counties and public authorities raised cost, scope, and implementation issues. The bill passed 7-0 after members discussed family care worker concerns and the author said he would continue working on the issue. AB 339 would require local governments to give unions 120 days’ notice before contracting out bargaining-unit work. Labor supporters said the bill would make existing meet-and-confer rights meaningful and protect jobs, while counties, cities, special districts, chambers of commerce, and staffing groups argued it would burden local agencies and interfere with existing MMBA procedures. The committee also heard AB 340, which would make communications between employees and union representatives confidential for PERB purposes; supporters said it codified existing case law, while school administrators, special districts, counties, and business groups warned it could hinder investigations. AB 378 would extend the classified school employees summer assistance program to JPA employees, and AB 374 would require more detailed pay stubs for classified school employees; both had labor support and some education-sector opposition over implementation and cost concerns, and both advanced. AB 393 would require cost analyses before contracting out physician work at CDCR and the Department of State Hospitals; supporters argued the state was overpaying contractors amid high vacancy rates, and the bill also advanced. At the end of the hearing, the committee recorded final votes showing AB 283, AB 340, AB 374, AB 378, AB 393, and AB 672 all passing out of committee, while AB 339 remained on hold with a 4-0 vote and some members not voting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Today we will receive testimony from David Fatui, the nominee to serve as the environmental counsel.
• And answer the following question, do you swear the testimony you're about to give to this committee
• I join the chairwoman in thanking you for your personal testimonies and being so transparent.
• Did I get that language correct from your testimony for both of you? Yes. Yes, Senator. Okay.
• Do you agree to ensure that testimony briefings, documents, and elect... of information are provided

Transcript Highlights:

• For those wishing to provide public testimony, if you are registering, please do so now.
• To provide written testimony only, you must also register at any kiosk and then turn in your written
• testimony.
• Testimony to the assistant clerk. We will need 40 copies with your name on each copy.
• If you wish to provide oral testimony, please fill out a witness card and turn it in to the assistant

Bills: SB1, SB 1

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• facilitate the hearing in a timely manner, we'll stick to the HHS standard of a 1-minute limit on testimony
• And if you've submitted written testimony, we implore you to stand on it unless there's more you'd like
• The department stands on its written testimony in support. Thank you so much.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Health and Human Services committee met on March 31, 2026, to consider Governor’s Message 791, which concerned confirmation of Virgilio Viernes to the Board of Certification of Operating Personnel in Wastewater Treatment Plants for a term ending June 30, 2029. The Department of Health’s Wastewater Branch testified in support and stood on its written testimony. No other testimony was offered, and no members asked questions of the department. The committee then noted that Mr. Viernes was not present in the room or on Zoom to answer questions. Because the nominee was unavailable, the chair and members agreed to defer the measure rather than take action that day. The committee said it would post a reconvene notice so the matter could be taken up later when the nominee could attend. The meeting was then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• I I wanted to nail down a testimony.
• With that, I have put testimony in the portal. I hope you read it.
• With that, I have put testimony in the portal. I hope you read it.
• With that, I have put testimony in the portal. I hope you read it.
• So this is his testimony. I won't back. So this is his testimony.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I have some written testimony. I will hand it out. My name's John Tobin. I'm a resident of Concord.
• He raised a couple of points that I would like to respond to that aren't in my testimony.
• <03:40:41.760> He's<03:40:42.080> very<03:40:43.279> um testimony as usual.
• He's very um testimony as usual.
• Would you be surprised to know that right now online testimony is 7 for, 7 against this bill and 108

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• because I heard I watched the testimony because I heard I watched the testimony after<01:41:35.119
• Russo has submitted testimony uh Mr.
• <04:23:27.439> and and thank you for your testimony and and thank you for your testimony and
• thank you so much for your testimony. thank you so much for your testimony.
• of your testimony, but just for of your testimony, but just for clarification's<05:08:44.798> sake

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If you wish to give testimony today, please fill out a witness card and hand it to the sergeant-at-arms
• Again, if you could keep your testimony, thank you.
• Again, if you could keep your testimony, thank you.
• I appreciate your testimony. All right, Jennifer Baker, Monique Blossom, Carissa Broussard.
• And thank you for your testimony today.

Bills: SB237

Keywords: child welfare, Department of Children and Family Services, mandatory reporting, abuse prevention, investigative teams, child ombudsman, forensic interviews, confidentiality

Summary: The Senate Committee on Health and Welfare met on May 20, 2026, with eight members present and approved the May 13 minutes. The committee quickly reported several bills favorably, including SB 1224, which requires DCFS review when a pregnancy involves a child under 17 and makes children under 12 a child in need of care; SB 1100, which repeals an old statute on unenriched bread; HB 1220, a continuation of prior work to codify certain provisions related to the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners; HB 1231, clarifying that continuous glucose monitoring is covered through Medicaid for any insulin-dependent diabetic, including gestational diabetes; and HB 198, setting reimbursement rates for ambulatory surgery centers for certain Medicaid procedures. The committee also adopted a personal privilege welcome for physicians on White Coat Day and repeatedly noted that several bills were being advanced with the understanding that further work might continue before floor debate. A major portion of the meeting focused on HB 1160, which would create a streamlined restricted license pathway for qualified international medical school graduates, especially for rural and shortage areas. Committee members pressed the Board of Medical Examiners about delays in promulgating rules under an earlier 2024 law and objected to rule language they said went beyond the statute. Board representatives acknowledged a misunderstanding about the original bill’s intent and said the program had been operating, but members warned against agencies writing rules that contradict enacted law. Despite the criticism, HB 1160 was reported favorably. The committee also reported favorably HCR 67, which creates a task force to study gaps in acute care for special-needs adults and children, following emotional testimony from the sponsor about her son’s death and the lack of appropriate care options. The committee then approved HCR 27, calling for a coordinated statewide evaluation of autism services by the Department of Health and Department of Education, with testimony emphasizing rising diagnosis rates, rural provider shortages, and the need for better data and coordination between medical and school-based services. HCR 28, which would study school nurse orientation and training, was also reported favorably after school nurses described the lack of standardized onboarding for new graduates and the risks of placing them alone in schools without adequate supervision. HB 469, which would have allowed pharmacy license renewal fees to be directed to Xavier University’s pharmacy school as well as public schools, was deferred after concerns about diverting funds from public institutions and the absence of testimony from affected schools. The committee also took up HB 223, which recreates DCFS, and adopted an amendment shortening the sunset date and requiring law enforcement reports to be accepted through a secure web-based platform; the bill was then reported favorably as amended. Another major discussion centered on HB 457 and HB 616, both tied to homelessness. HB 457, establishing minimum standards for shelters and related facilities, was reported favorably as amended after sponsor testimony and support cards. HB 616, which would allow the legislative auditor and local officials access to records and databases for audits of homelessness initiatives, drew extensive debate over privacy, federal funding, and accountability. Supporters cited a 2025 audit showing more than $216 million in federal homelessness spending in New Orleans and argued that auditors need access to performance data to detect waste and abuse; opponents warned about client privacy and the impact of funding cutoffs. The committee adopted an amendment changing permissive language to mandatory language for enforcement and then continued hearing testimony, with the discussion still centered on balancing oversight with confidentiality.

Transcript Highlights:

• I simply am referring you to the testimony that was given by the governor's office yesterday.
• That was their testimony, and that is all the information I have. Additional questions.
• That is the testimony of the governor's office. Senator Davis. Thank you, Mr. President.
• And that is the governor's testimony. Senator Davis. Thank you, Mr.
• We've had a good discussion about that, but we also have testimony, testimony that I've referred to before

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.