Transcript Highlights:

• Whereas, Justice Thompson's statements violate or threaten to violate a client's right to due process
• <01:14:01.760><c> and</c> statement and statement and quote<01:14:03.080><c> in</c><01:14:03.680><c>
• Whereas, Justice Thompson's statements Whereas, Justice Thompson's statements violate<01:14:46.640><
• Whereas, Justice Thompson's statements Whereas, Justice Thompson's statements violate<01:15:25.320><
• Whereas, Justice Thompson's statements Whereas, Justice Thompson's statements are<01:15:45.360><c> intemperate

Keywords: In an effort to stave off issues that may occur with long format live streams, we have split this stream into two parts., 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, I just got a brief statement and then I got a question. Very brief statement.
• I'm talking about that; that was my statement on EOR. Right. Okay. Your statement was EOR.
• That was my interpretation of their statement.
• I appreciate the opposition's statement about land use, and it really adds a lot of punch to my statement
• I appreciate the opposition's statement about land use, and it really adds a lot of punch to my statement

Summary: The House Natural Resources Committee met on House Bill 7 by Speaker Pro Tem Johnson, the Louisiana Landowners Protection Act, which would remove eminent domain authority for carbon capture and geological sequestration projects. After housekeeping and roll call, the committee adopted a set of technical amendments that cleaned up definitions, removed a stray statutory reference, and changed “commissioner” to “secretary.” The author then gave an extended presentation arguing the bill was needed to align Louisiana law with the state constitution’s property-rights protections and recent court rulings, and to ensure carbon capture projects proceed only through voluntary agreements rather than forced takings. Several members questioned the author and supportive witnesses about whether the bill would stop carbon capture, affect oil and gas pipelines, or disrupt investment. The author and supporters said it would not stop projects, only prevent taking land without consent, and argued that landowners—especially small and rural owners—should not face the threat of expropriation. Supportive testimony also emphasized family land, inheritance, and constitutional limits on takings. Some members raised concerns about changing the rules after prior legislative action and about the economic importance of carbon capture, but the author responded that the legislature had made a mistake in 2020 and should correct it now. Opposition testimony came from representatives of the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, the Louisiana Chemistry Association, and attorneys who handle right-of-way matters. They argued that eminent domain is a rare last resort, that existing law and the Landowner Bill of Rights already protect owners, and that the Constitution’s provisions for private-entity expropriation are different from the provisions discussed by the bill’s supporters. They warned that removing the tool for carbon capture would chill investment, threaten jobs and revenue, and could spill over into other energy infrastructure. The committee did not reach a final vote on the bill in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• That was how they read or understood the statement.
• </c> allow me I will just read that statement allow me I will just read that statement it<01:14:14.520
• </c> bacteria so I look at those statements bacteria so I look at those statements which<01:14:40.840
• that statement and I'm not I take that statement and I'm not doubting<01:14:52.360><c> the</c><01:14:
• </c> cabinet and some of those statements cabinet and some of those statements right<01:14:59.560><c>

Keywords: 00:00:00 Call to Order/Roll Call 00:01:37 Discussion of 25RS HB 392 00:03:10 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 392 00:04:20 Discussion of 25RS HB 580 00:13:28 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 580 00:14:54 Discussion of 25RS HB 688 00:18:40 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 688 00:21:40 Discussion of 25RS HB 16 01:19:44 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 16 01:27:32 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 392, sponsored by Representative Proctor, which would help the Department for Behavioral Health, Developmental and Intellectual Disabilities pay for emergency medical and psychiatric services provided to patients outside state facilities when those facilities cannot meet their needs. Proctor described it as a continuing improvement bill to address payment issues for services delivered at community-based facilities. The bill received no substantive opposition in the meeting and passed the committee with favorable expression by a vote of 15 yes, 0 no, and 1 pass. The committee then considered House Bill 580, presented by Representative Kim Moser and Elena Sweezy, which tightens oversight of peer support specialists. The bill was described as building on House Bill 505 from the prior year by reinstating supervision requirements, adding parameters around group sizes, creating a pathway for temporary peer support specialists to become fully registered after nine months, and addressing Medicaid reimbursement and accountability concerns. Members asked about reimbursement; the sponsor said Medicaid was okay with the bill and that commercial insurance coverage would be up to insurers. Representative Fleming emphasized the need for stronger financial oversight of the peer support code. The committee adopted a substitute and title amendment, then passed the bill with favorable expression. House Bill 688 was then heard, with Representative Bratcher explaining that it addresses two issues: preventing fraud in nurse licensure by giving the Kentucky Board of Nursing more discretion to review out-of-state credentials, and expanding school authority to administer certain emergency medications. He said the bill changes the board’s authority from “shall” to “may” so it can verify transcripts, curricula, accreditation, and exam passage. During discussion, Representative Sharp explained his yes vote by noting the bill also adds rescue medications such as glucagon and Solu-Cortef and allows prescribed emergency medications for known conditions in schools. The committee passed the bill with favorable expression. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 16, which would leave decisions about adding fluoride to drinking water to local governing bodies rather than maintaining a state mandate. Supporters, including Representative David Hale, Dr. Jack Call, and Cindy Batson, argued that fluoridation should be a local choice and raised concerns about cost, potential health risks, and the precautionary principle. Opponents, including Dr. Steve Robertson of the Kentucky Dental Association, defended fluoridation as beneficial for preventing tooth decay and warned that local removal decisions could increase Medicaid costs and may not reflect the broader public interest. The transcript provided does not show a final committee vote on House Bill 16 in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> to you want to make an make a statement to you want to make an make a statement about<00:14:48.399
• versus not making a political statement.
• versus not make a political statement versus not make a political statement<00:19:09.120><c> making<
• /c><00:19:09.400><c> political</c><00:19:09.760><c> statements</c><00:19:10.120><c> if</c> statement
• making political statements if statement making political statements if there's<00:19:10.400><c> a</c

Committee: House Public Safety Finance and Policy

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't know if there is a statement, so I don't know what the fiscal impact would be other than what
• their coordinating this so that is in their basic<00:09:24.640><c> mission</c><00:09:25.640><c> statement
• uh or Mission I basic mission statement uh or Mission I don't<00:09:27.920><c> know</c><00:09:28.040
• </c><00:09:29.519><c> so</c><00:09:29.800><c> I</c> don't know if there is a statement so I don't know
• if there is a statement so I don't<00:09:30.120><c> know</c><00:09:30.440><c> what</c><00:09:30.600>

Keywords: Roll Call 00:20 Approval of Minutes 01:00 SB 87 Discussion 01:23 SB 87 Vote 09:45, 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the minutes from the February 12 meeting, and then took up its only agenda item, Senate Bill 87. A committee substitute was adopted before testimony. Senator Shelley Funke Frommeyer presented the bill with representatives from CVG, describing it as an efficiency measure for Kentucky’s aviation sector. The bill’s main provisions would streamline procurement rules for Kentucky’s three largest commercial airports by tying the acquisition threshold to the FAA’s simplified acquisition threshold, which adjusts with inflation. Testimony also explained that the bill directs the Council on Postsecondary Education and the Transportation Cabinet to study workforce needs in aviation, especially the shortage of air traffic controllers, and to examine ways Kentucky postsecondary institutions could help create a path to additional training and possibly a second site for final credentialing. Committee members and the Senate President spoke in support of the bill’s workforce and aviation goals. The President said CPE should be doing this kind of planning without needing extra funding, and noted the bill fits CPE’s coordinating role. The chair announced the fiscal note on the underlying bill showed no impact, though it may change with the substitute. The committee then voted to report Senate Bill 87 favorably with the committee substitute attached, and adjourned after no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, yeah, as far as what I think you're saying, they would be getting these statements rather than bills
• You made the statement that they sent the instructions of the overage to the property in question that
• Is that an accurate statement, or was there subsequent—if you get it back undeliverable, do you make
• Can I make a statement as to that letter that you're holding?
• Can I make a statement as to that letter that you're holding?

Committee: All JBC-CLAIMS REVIEW/LITIGATION REPORTS OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE

Summary: The Joint Budget Committee’s Claims Review and Litigation Reports Oversight Subcommittee met to consider two proposed Department of Corrections litigation settlements and one appealed claim from the Claims Commission. The first settlement, Caroline Arnett v. Larry Norris et al., involved allegations of long-term sexual abuse by a corrections employee. Committee members asked about PREA audits, facility practices, and whether the inmate had been placed at the proper facility. The department said audits and other safeguards were underway, and the committee approved the settlement. The second settlement, Latasha Ridgel v. Arkansas Department of Corrections, also involved sexual harassment/assault allegations. Members questioned the seven-year delay in the case and whether the issue was systemic; the department cited attorney turnover, COVID delays, and legislative changes making inmate exposure a felony. The committee approved that settlement as well. The committee then heard an appeal in Sharon Greer and Deanna Hayes v. Commissioner of State Lands, a denied and dismissed claim involving a tax-delinquent sale of family property in Crittenden County. Staff and the Commissioner of State Lands’ office said the property was certified in 2000, sold in 2009 after notice was sent, and that excess proceeds were available for a limited period before escheating to the county. The claimants argued they were not properly notified of the sale or the excess proceeds and only learned of the matter in 2025 after receiving the deed at a family funeral. Committee members discussed the notice process, statute of limitations, and the handling of excess proceeds, with several noting the issue may call for legislative review rather than relief in this case. After debate, the committee voted to affirm the Claims Commission’s dismissal of the Greer/Hayes claim. Members also discussed broader concerns about how excess proceeds from tax sales are handled and whether the current statutory process should be revisited in future legislation.

Transcript Highlights:

• I just, I know we all know this, but just a reminder, this is a memorial. ...and it's a statement, and
• I think it's an important statement to make.
• and statements matter, and our memorials are, even though we have another colleague who calls them a
• But this is about making a statement. Congress come good.
• And once again, it's just a statement.

Committee: House Education

Summary: The committee first heard House Joint Memorial 20, sponsored by Representative Steve Tanner, which asks the federal government to study and account for the cost Idaho says it bears under Plyler v. Doe for educating children of non-citizens. Tanner argued the ruling functions as an unfunded mandate and estimated the annual cost to Idaho taxpayers at roughly $112 million to $220 million. Members debated whether the memorial conflicted with Plyler, whether undocumented status could even be studied, and whether the memorial unfairly targeted a vulnerable population. Supporters said it was simply a statement asking the federal government to make Idaho whole; opponents raised concerns about one-sided framing and the treatment of immigrant children. The committee took a roll call vote and passed the memorial 10-3, sending it to the floor with a due pass recommendation. The committee then took up House Bill 883, sponsored by Representative Doug Pickett, a school funding flexibility and earned autonomy proposal for both traditional public school districts and public charter schools. Pickett and Idaho Charter School Network representative Emily McClure explained that the bill would allow qualifying schools more discretion over funding and reduce reporting burdens if they meet academic, financial, and governance benchmarks. The bill includes a two-year grace period if a school has a bad year and a 2029 review date. Questions focused on the different standards for districts and charters, how many schools might qualify, how growth and socioeconomic factors are accounted for, and why virtual charter schools were excluded. Supporters said the bill rewards strong performance and innovation while maintaining accountability. Testimony in favor emphasized that high-performing schools need flexibility to allocate funds, hire experienced staff, and reduce compliance work; one charter school leader said a compliance position had become 95% paperwork. Some members praised the bipartisan effort and said the bill could be a useful experiment and a bridge to broader funding reform. Representative Veeley moved to send HB 883 to the floor with a due pass recommendation, and the committee approved the motion by voice vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, and now I'm just going to read quickly a statement from John Gouki, an electrician in Duluth, who
• Um, and now I'm just going to read quickly a statement from John Gouki, an electrician in Duluth, who
• Um, and now I'm just going to read quickly a statement from John Gouki, an electrician in Duluth, who
• </c><00:10:23.120><c> about</c><00:10:23.440><c> his</c> wanted to share his statement about his wanted
• to share his statement about his support<00:10:24.000><c> for</c><00:10:24.240><c> plug-in</c><00:10

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The meeting was an announcement and support event for a Minnesota plug-in solar bill led by Rep. Larry Craft and Sen. Rob Coop. Craft described plug-in solar as a way to expand access to affordable solar for renters, people with shaded or unsuitable roofs, and others who cannot install traditional rooftop systems. He said the bill would define plug-in solar devices as up to 1,200 watts, allow storage, require certification to UL 3700 safety standards, and exempt these devices from utility interconnection agreements and submetering requirements. Sen. Coop said he was excited to sign on after hearing from a constituent interested in deck solar and after learning Craft already had a bill. He framed the proposal as both an affordability measure and a way to democratize solar access, especially for lower-income households and apartment residents. Supporters including Bobby King of Solar United Neighbors and Patty O'Keefe of Vote Solar said interest in plug-in solar is statewide, the policy would lower barriers and energy bills, and the systems are simple, safe, and well-suited to small spaces like balconies, decks, patios, and yards. John Gouki, an electrician from Duluth, submitted a statement supporting the bill on safety and resilience grounds, saying 1,200 watts is a safe limit for UL-listed plug-in solar and that the systems can provide backup power while reducing grid consumption. Craft and Coop also pointed to examples from other places, including Utah and Germany, as evidence that the technology is already spreading. The event ended with expressions of support and enthusiasm for moving the bill forward; no vote or formal committee action was taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• We got a joint statement.
• We got a joint statement.
• We got a joint statement.
• We got a joint statement.
• We got a joint statement.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The subcommittee met on October 14, approved the minutes, and then took up a large group of staff-suggested amendments to multiple regulations. Those staff amendments were approved without objection and were described as technical changes needed to comply with KRS Chapter 13A and other governing law. The committee then moved out of order to consider Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure regulation 2011 KAR 9:270, which governs buprenorphine prescribing and related standards. Board representatives said the regulation has been updated over time since 2015 and that the current amendments are intended to streamline the rule, remove outdated federal references such as the X-waiver, narrow education requirements to addiction-related topics, and create exceptions for settings like emergency rooms and certain pain treatment situations. The agency amendment would also allow buprenorphine monoproduct for up to 30 days when a patient is transitioning from a full opioid agonist, and would add physicians certified in addiction medicine as eligible specialty consultants. Board officials said the regulation was developed through a two-year process with a work group, informal outreach to medical organizations, and multiple comment periods, and they argued the rule is working because overdose deaths have declined and provider numbers have increased. Several witnesses and committee members raised concerns that the regulation remains too restrictive. Senator Rocky Adams noted that major medical organizations had said the proposed language could restrict access and worsen overdose risk, and he questioned whether the committee was being asked to choose between conflicting expert views. Opponents, including a medical student, a recovery advocate, and Dr. Colleen Ryan of the Kentucky Society of Addiction Medicine, argued the rule is outdated, creates unnecessary barriers to buprenorphine treatment, and should be repealed or substantially revised to align with federal guidance and evidence-based care. They said rigid requirements can discourage treatment and that addiction should be treated like other chronic illnesses. No final vote on the medical licensure regulation is reflected in the transcript excerpt, and the discussion ended with the chair preparing to hear from additional opponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• I would like to make a statement at the beginning.
• Recognize Dean Thompson for a brief statement.
• Just a brief statement. The Chair recognizes Mr. Wolf for a brief statement. Thank you, Mr.
• May I follow that with a brief statement? Chair recognizes Mr. Rosenthal for a brief statement.
• To make a statement. The Chair recognizes Mr. Rosenthal to make a statement. Very good, thank you.

Committee: House Congressional Redistricting, Select

Keywords: 997, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So the statement has to be willful, with the...
• You can't get their statement, deposition. You can't get information.
• You can't get their statement, deposition. You can't get information.
• Does it require a recorded statement from the injured employee?
• The attorney refused to allow a statement.

Bills: HB282 , HB293 , HB390 , HB456 , HB460 , HB561 , HB819 , HB1023 , HB1047 , HB1101

Committee: House Labor & Industrial

Keywords: employment discrimination, criminal history, rehabilitation, hiring process, human rights, gender identity, sexual orientation, workplace equality, labor rights, domestic abuse, unpaid leave, employee rights, workplace protection, mental health, survivor support, workers' compensation, employment benefits, claims process, fraud prevention, legal petition

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, I'm proud to present House File 3940, which would require an environmental impact statement, or EIS
• In 2025, the state did 53 EAWs and only three environmental impact statements.
• </c> three environmental impact statements. three environmental impact statements.
• An environmental impact statement is not about stopping projects.
• impact statement is not about<00:11:29.560><c> stopping</c><00:11:30.040><c> projects.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And then he further... what I took away, I heard a very clear statement that he was not intending to
• I do have another statement that I prepared that I would just like to read, so thank you, Chair, for
• Um, so I held the, so I chose not to give in your statement.
• Um, so I held the, so I chose not to give in your statement.
• Um, so I held the, so I chose not to give in your statement.

Committee: House Public Safety

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Public Safety met on Wednesday, April 2 at 11:05 a.m. and began with housekeeping instructions for Zoom testimony and meeting conduct. The first major item was House Resolution 43, HD1, which urged the City and County of Honolulu to work with stakeholders on an emergency access road on the West Coast. The acting chair proposed a substantial HD2 amendment to add Makakilo language, expanding the resolution to call for two emergency access roads—one on the Ewa coast and one in Makakilo—and to request community meetings and a timeline for an alternative Makakilo access road by early 2026. Testimony on the resolution was strongly supportive overall, with 14 written testimonies in favor and none opposed. The committee then debated whether the proposed HD2 was appropriate without prior concurrence from the original introducer or prior committee chair. Several members objected to the amendment process and said they would vote no because the amendment had not been posted in advance and lacked concurrence, while the acting chair argued the rules did not require concurrence for resolutions and that the amendment was needed to address Makakilo residents’ safety concerns. The discussion also included references to prior conversations with leadership and the Speaker about whether resolution titles could be amended. After debate, the committee first voted on the amended version of HR 43, but the recommendation was not adopted. The acting chair then moved to pass HR 43 HD1 as originally presented, without the new Makakilo amendments. That motion was adopted, with the committee voting to pass the resolution as is. The record notes that members supporting the original measure cited the written testimony and the need for a second access point on the West Coast, while others voted no because they viewed the Makakilo language as duplicative or preferred a separate measure. After HR 43, the committee moved on to HCR 9, and the acting chair indicated that the committee would need to take a reconsideration vote before proceeding to a final vote on that resolution.

Transcript Highlights:

• We won't be doing opening statements, just for purposes of time.
• So for example, one was a bank statement.
• that bank statement.
• We have bank statements that show checks bouncing.
• I’m going back to your statement.” “Ms.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We won't be doing opening statements just for purposes of time.
• So, for example, one was a bank statement.
• that bank statement.
• We have bank statements that show checks bouncing.
• I'm going back to your statement. Ms.

Summary: The follow-up informational hearing focused on the State Library’s oversight of the statewide Imagination Library and the Strong Reader Partnership (SRP), including how the original $68.2 million state investment was spent, why funds were not redirected sooner to the Dollywood Foundation, and whether spending complied with AB 157 and later SB 105. Committee members repeatedly raised concerns that SRP and the State Library had been slow to provide documents, that quarterly reporting and other contract requirements were not met on time, and that the State Library did not escalate issues earlier. State Librarian Greg Lucas said the library sent one demand letter, relied on counsel’s view that SRP could continue spending its $4.8 million so long as it furthered the program, and later redirected about $55 million to the Dollywood Foundation after paperwork was submitted. He also acknowledged the library should have shared SRP’s final report with the committee sooner and said the materials eventually received appeared satisfactory, though the chair and Senator Grove remained concerned that there was still no clear accounting of books delivered by SRP. A major portion of the hearing examined SRP’s expenditures and vendor contracts, including Shipyard for marketing and web services, SAGE Strategies for management consulting, Lotus Financial Solutions and other financial vendors, and United Way California Capital Region for a small marketing grant. Committee members questioned whether some spending, especially Changecraft’s work during the AB 157 period, amounted to lobbying or attempts to influence legislation, which the grant agreement prohibited. SRP representatives said the work was communications and stakeholder outreach, not lobbying, and that invoices reflected the board’s oversight and the nonprofit’s startup and closeout phases. They also said some work continued during the rescission and closeout period to unwind contracts and return funds, and that any reporting delays were due to transition, lack of a reporting mechanism from the State Library, and the need to collect records after vendors were canceled. Members of SRP said the nonprofit was created to build the infrastructure for a self-sustaining statewide program, expand local partnerships, and support multilingual outreach in underserved counties. They described a working board that met regularly, selected vendors collectively, and used multiple financial and administrative contractors to maintain checks and balances. However, committee members pressed them on the lack of detailed invoices, the absence of clear metrics showing how many books SRP actually delivered, and the limited apparent return on spending such as the $581,708 Shipyard contract, the $125,000 website work, and the $5,000 United Way grant. No formal vote or legislative action was taken during the hearing; it was an oversight session aimed at obtaining explanations and additional documentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• Do you still stand by your statement of 'a lesser Black woman'?
• Thank you for that statement, but I want to revisit the question.
• I'd Senator, I've been very clear in my past public statements.
• Recognize, please, ma'am, if you would give us your statement, please.
• Is that your final statement? I didn't. I think we may have lost you again.

Summary: The committee on Higher Education Appropriations heard and favorably reported two bills: SB 1570, which revives the former Project Leo program to help locate missing persons with special needs through voluntary tracking devices and coordination with sheriff’s offices, and CS/SB 1376, which creates a grant program to support genetic counseling education in response to a statewide shortage of genetic counselors. Both bills drew supportive comments, with the genetic counseling bill also receiving public support from a university representative. The committee then took up a large slate of confirmations. It first approved a block of reappointments to various university and college boards of trustees, including institutions such as UWF, Broward College, Chipola College, FIU, Pasco-Hernando, Polk State, St. Petersburg College, Valencia, FAMU, FAU, UCF, FSU, New College, UNF, USF, and Broward College. It then heard from numerous new appointees and some requested reappointments, many of whom emphasized workforce training, nursing, military and veteran support, dual enrollment, and local economic development as priorities for their institutions. Several nominees highlighted their personal ties to the schools and communities they would serve, including appointees to Pensacola State, Polk State, St. Petersburg College, UNF, UWF, FIU, the College of the Florida Keys, Valencia College, and Chipola College. Committee members repeatedly asked about nursing NCLEX pass rates, workforce alignment, and institutional growth. One reappointment, Thomas Zachary Smith to the UWF board, was pulled from the block for separate questioning about his past public comments and his role in Project 2025; he said he would serve in his personal capacity and treat all students equally. The committee also separately heard from a Florida Poly reappointment, I. Shapiro, who was questioned about prior remarks regarding race and Supreme Court nominations, and from a New College reappointment, Mark Bowerlaine, who described campus improvements and enrollment growth. The meeting ended amid ongoing confirmation processing and separate votes on the remaining nominees.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I think you did state this in your opening statement.
• I look at the lines one and two, and there's a statement there.
• I look at the lines one and two, and there's a statement there.
• That's the true statement. That's already the law in Missouri.
• That's a statement. That's the opening of a presentation. It's not statute.

Committee: House Commerce, Consumer Protection, Energy and the Environment

Summary: The committee first met in executive session on House Joint Resolution 173 and 174, which would put a tax-reform proposal before voters. Members debated a failed amendment to change the ballot language, with supporters saying it would more honestly describe the measure as a tax replacement that could expand sales taxes, and opponents saying it would be misleading and overly restrictive. The committee then adopted a House committee substitute that clarified the proposal, including a phased reduction in the individual income tax tied to revenue growth, and voted the substitute do pass by a 7-3 roll call. The committee next took up House Bills 321 and 2531 under a new committee substitute. The substitute made a series of technical and policy changes involving redevelopment, tax increment financing, public safety funding, Missouri Opportunity Zones, baseline revenue calculations, and local property tax diversion, including reducing one diversion requirement from 50% to 25%. Members and the sponsor described the changes as clarifying agency roles and addressing constitutional and administrative concerns. The committee adopted the substitute and then voted the combined bill do pass by a 9-0-1 vote. In public hearing, House Bill 3230 by Rep. Hardwick would bar cities and counties from outright banning modular or qualified manufactured homes in areas where single-family homes are allowed, while still allowing reasonable safety, zoning, and compatibility standards. The sponsor and supporters from the Missouri Manufactured Housing Association argued the bill would expand affordable housing and prevent discriminatory local restrictions; the Missouri Municipal League said it supported the goal but wanted more work on language to preserve local flexibility. The committee also heard House Bill 2888 by Rep. Deal, which would limit standalone medical-monitoring claims without present physical injury. The sponsor and a civil justice coalition supporter said the bill would align Missouri law with court precedent and require an actual injury, while opponents and affected residents argued it would block needed monitoring for exposure to PFAS and other contaminants and could leave exposed communities without a remedy.

Transcript Highlights:

• The proposed bill provides for the inclusion of the financial impact statement on the petition form,
• Chair, and Senator Grall, I realize that we are reacting to your statement when you read what the bill
• Chair, and Senator Grall, I realize that we are reacting to your statement when you read what the bill
• Chair, and Senator Graal, I realize that we are reacting to your statement when you read what the bill
• The statement, and the statement can't be clear and has to be... ...be clear and not misleading.

Committee: Senate Ethics and Elections

Summary: The Senate Committee on Ethics and Elections met to consider SPB 7016, a major bill revising Florida’s constitutional initiative petition process. Senator Grall presented it as a fraud-prevention and ballot-integrity measure that would add sponsor training, stricter circulator rules, more voter identification information, faster submission deadlines, notice to voters whose signatures are verified, and additional civil and criminal penalties. The committee also considered several amendments, including a $1 million bond requirement, font and page limits for petition forms, restrictions on incentive-based circulator pay, removal of a criminal-conviction prerequisite for certain fines, deposit and reimbursement procedures for supervisors of elections, invalidation of petitions gathered by ineligible circulators, mandatory circulator training, and a prohibition on public funds being used to advocate for or against constitutional amendments. All of the amendments were adopted, with some roll-call votes recorded and most passing on party-line or near party-line splits. The bill drew extensive questioning from senators, especially about the practical effects of the new requirements. Senator Polsky and Senator Rouson raised concerns about disenfranchising voters, burdening grassroots volunteers, the cost of bonds and deposits, the 10-day return deadline, and whether voters would be notified if a petition they signed was later invalidated. Grall said the measures were intended to protect the constitutionally significant initiative process, reduce fraud, and ensure sponsors—not taxpayers—bear administrative costs. Dave Ramba, speaking for supervisors of elections, supported the deposit and reimbursement concepts but warned that the bill’s implementation would be operationally difficult and that software vendors might not be ready for the changes by the effective date. He also said the process should avoid subsidizing petition drives with county taxpayer money. Public testimony was overwhelmingly opposed, with speakers from Common Cause Florida, the League of Women Voters, the NAACP Florida State Conference, Florida Rising, Equal Ground, Voices of Florida, and other civic groups arguing the bill would suppress direct democracy, criminalize volunteer activity, impose excessive costs, and create confusion and litigation risk. One speaker from the Florida Chamber of Commerce supported the bill, saying the initiative process should be protected from fraud and outside interests. During debate, Senator Polsky argued the Legislature has steadily made the initiative process harder after recent citizen-led amendments succeeded, while supporters framed the bill as a necessary integrity measure. The committee had not yet taken final action on the bill itself by the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we used public data from the environmental impact statement that was done when the LNG facility was
• The preference is exempt, but it does have a performance statement. Requirements.
• The preference is exempt, but it does have a performance statement that does allude to an expiration
• We'll look at four different components of the performance statement.
• One, does the policy objective align to the performance metric in the performance statement?

Summary: House Finance met in work session on January 13, 2026, beginning with the introduction of new member Rep. Janice Zahn and a reminder about short-session amendment deadlines. The committee then heard JLARC’s 2025 tax preference performance reviews, covering nine preferences. JLARC recommended continuing several preferences, including natural gas transportation fuel exemptions, reduced B&O rates for travel agents and tour operators, a property tax exemption for nonprofit low-income housing developers, a property tax exemption for multipurpose senior centers, a sales and use tax remittance for disabled veteran adapted housing, a trade convention attendance nexus exemption, a B&O exemption for agricultural fertilizer and seed sales, and a hazardous substance tax exemption for certain pesticides. JLARC also recommended allowing unused silicon smelter-related preferences to expire. Members asked about legislative intent, data limitations, and how performance metrics should be tied more clearly to policy objectives; committee leaders and JLARC staff discussed a new standardized rubric for future tax preference performance statements and fiscal note review. The committee also noted that bills related to some of the reviewed preferences were already introduced. For the low-income housing exemption, JLARC said nonprofit developers were building homes as intended but that the current spending-based metric did not fully reflect the policy goal, and it recommended the legislature decide whether to continue or modify the preference. For multipurpose senior centers, JLARC said the exemption met its inferred objective and recommended continuation, with possible consideration of making it permanent. For the disabled veteran adapted housing remittance, JLARC said few eligible veterans were claiming the benefit and recommended continuation with changes to improve access and consultation with the Department of Veterans Affairs. On the trade convention attendance exemption, JLARC said use was unknown but the preference likely helped keep Washington competitive with other states and recommended continuation, though members questioned the lack of direct evidence and the administrative-burden rationale. The committee then received an update from the Economic and Revenue Forecast Council. The forecast showed the U.S. economy slowing but still growing, with Washington expected to have modest growth, weak employment gains, continued personal income growth, and slow construction. ERFC said tariffs and trade policy remained the biggest risks, inflation was expected to stay elevated in the near term, and the Federal Reserve had cut rates three times in 2025 with two more cuts projected in 2026. State revenues were up $105 million in the current biennium compared with the November forecast, but down $185 million in the next biennium, with growth driven in part by recent legislative changes and improved estate tax collections. Members asked about sector-specific employment trends, the impact of high-income households on retail sales, and how state revenues compare with personal income over time. The meeting adjourned after the forecast presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• Before turning to my formal opening statement, I want to let members know how we'll proceed this morning
• for his opening statement and then we'll swear in the witnesses and introduce them.
• You want an opening statement, too?
• But in your case, Mr Abbott, we're going to let you go ahead with an opening statement.
• statement? Yes. Thank you.

Committee: Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee