Transcript Highlights:

• Before we get our presentations, I'd like to take care of some logistical housekeeping.
• Many counties in our region have no 211 service at all.
• affordable for low-income Californians, consistent with the Universal Telephone Service Act.
• Unfortunately, since its inception, this program has Telephone Service Act.
• There already is a Universal Lifeline Telephone Service Trust Administrative Committee.

Summary: The Communications and Conveyance Committee heard several bills focused on telecommunications, emergency response, and digital access. AB 1540 by Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez would restore the 988 “press 3” option for LGBTQ+ youth crisis support, with strong support from suicide prevention advocates, mental health organizations, local governments, and family groups, and opposition from groups arguing it politicizes crisis services and raises safety concerns. Members emphasized the bill’s life-saving purpose and noted it would depend on federal approval. The committee voted AB 1540 out on a due pass recommendation to Appropriations. The committee also approved the consent calendar, including AB 2093 and AB 2193, both sent to Appropriations. AB 1832 by Assemblymember Ransom, as amended, would expand and stabilize statewide 211 services through a state fund, a community needs dashboard, and integration into emergency planning; supporters described 211’s role during disasters and service gaps in many counties, and the bill passed unanimously as amended to Appropriations. AB 2289, the chair’s bill, would create an Office of Broadband and Digital Equity, consolidate broadband programs, and narrow CPUC jurisdiction to voice communications; TURN and CWA District 9 opposed the regulatory changes but acknowledged shared goals, and the bill passed to Appropriations. AB 2424 by Assemblymember Carrillo would create a new low-income telecommunications advisory board to oversee California Lifeline and address fraud and oversight concerns. Supporters said the board would add needed telecommunications expertise and improve access for low-income and immigrant communities, while opponents argued an existing advisory structure already serves that role and warned of added costs and surcharges. After discussion, the committee voted AB 2424 out on a 7-2 vote to Appropriations. The meeting concluded after all listed bills were reported out.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm not sure to have to direct as any other context. Hold on. Mr.
• There are a number of districts that contract for bus services.
• And again, this is in the Higher Education Act, specifically to pre-service teachers.
• And so I think we have to be very careful about that language.
• So are we then directing, as far as law enforcement, how they can respond to an issue?

Summary: The committee first heard a detailed staff presentation on the LESC FY27 public school support recommendation. Staff reviewed the budget structure and explained that, despite a downward revision in state revenue estimates, the recommendation still relied on recurring and non-recurring revenue to support educator compensation, insurance, transportation, literacy, math, special education, and other school programs. Major recurring items included a 3% compensation increase, funding for an 80-20 health insurance cost share, insurance premium growth, and transportation adequacy funding. Staff also flagged a possible supplemental need of up to $35 million for virtual education tied to rapid enrollment growth in Chama and Santa Rosa, and members raised concerns about the quality, accountability, and funding model for virtual programs. Members asked questions about transportation for rural districts, the Martinez-Yazzie lawsuit fees, the treatment of enrollment declines in the school funding formula, and whether the word “average” in salary language should remain in the budget. Staff explained that the SEG should remain whole, that the insurance and transportation recommendations applied to all public school employees but not contractors, and that the budget included multiple math-related investments spread across several lines rather than one single appropriation. There was also discussion of out-of-school learning grants, school meals, literacy center operations, special education training, and the Public Education Reform Fund, including the use of multi-year, evaluation-based appropriations for high-impact tutoring and community schools. After discussion, the committee adopted the LESC budget recommendation. The committee then moved to endorsed legislation proposals. It endorsed a bill allowing the secretary to suspend an individual school board member, with notice and appeal procedures clarified, and a bill creating an 80-20 health insurance cost-share requirement for public school employees, along with a study of the sustainability of public school insurance programs. It also endorsed a bill on attendance provisions for students with severe medical conditions, which would keep those students from being classified as excessively absent. Finally, the committee discussed a teacher residency bill that would raise stipend levels, allow residents to complete service anywhere in New Mexico, and remove the requirement that sponsoring schools must hire them, though the bill did not include an appropriation. Members also raised questions about bilingual, Hispanic, and Black education funding, cultural and linguistic supports in teacher preparation, and where various programs should be placed in the budget or PERF framework.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:22:44.480><c> and</c> families without cutting services and families without cutting services
• We'll continue to improve health care together, health care access, and affordability.
• </c> honor of service. honor of service. &gt;&gt; [applause] [applause] You may be seated.
• I woke and found that life was service. I acted and behold, service was joy.
• I woke and found that life was service. service. service.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:02:22.480><c> System</c> this state uh every Health Care System this state uh every Health Care
• care care provider<00:04:45.800><c> um</c><00:04:46.479><c> I'm</c><00:04:46.639><c> also</c><00:04:
• </c><00:05:12.600><c> providers</c> like community based service providers like community based service
• </c> query all the different service query all the different service providers<00:09:20.200><c> by</c
• </c> tremendous in terms of uh us directing tremendous in terms of uh us directing our<00:10:21.360><

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Health Services met with a quorum and first considered House Bill 9, which would create a Medicaid Oversight and Advisory Board modeled after the Public Pension Oversight Board. The sponsors said the board is intended to bring together the executive branch, legislative branch, and stakeholders to study Medicaid policy and its fiscal impacts before changes are made. Members generally supported the concept, with questions focused on board size and representation from providers and community-based service organizations. The bill was reported favorably by unanimous vote, including a title amendment. The committee then heard House Bill 152, which would create a Medicaid supplemental directed payment program for public EMS agencies, including fire departments and city, county, or taxing-district EMS providers. The sponsor said the measure is designed to draw down a higher federal match without any general fund impact, and noted support from local government groups. After brief discussion, the bill passed with favorable expression by unanimous vote. Finally, the committee took up House Bill 688, a two-part measure. One part would give the Board of Nursing more discretion to review out-of-state nursing credentials by changing mandatory acceptance of certification to permissive language, in response to concerns about fraudulent or substandard nursing programs and the effects of multistate licensure. The other part would allow certain diabetes medications to be stored and administered in schools, with training for school personnel and civil immunity for those acting in good faith. Some members supported the bill as a way to protect patients and maintain standards, while one senator voted no because of concerns about slowing licensure during a nursing shortage. The bill passed 10-1 with favorable expression. The committee announced it would meet again Wednesday at 8:30 a.m., then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> provide compassionate care for people. provide compassionate care for people.
• They're caring for children. working. They're caring for children.
• </c> of Health and Human Services. of Health and Human Services.
• support services grant refugee service support services grant fund.<04:44:19.600><c> I</c><04:44:19.840
• New Hampshire Church World Service and a Centria Care Alliance, they wouldn't be there.

Committee: House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs

Summary: The House Committee on Health, Human Services, and Elderly Affairs heard HB 1790-FN, which would address involuntary admissions for certain individuals with a substance use disorder. Representative Lucy Weber introduced the bill for Representative Long, and the committee heard extensive testimony both in support of and in opposition to the proposal. Opponents, including John Burns of SOS Recovery and Jake Barry of New Futures, argued that involuntary commitment is not well supported by research, can retraumatize people, may increase overdose risk after release, and could undermine New Hampshire’s existing recovery and harm-reduction efforts. They emphasized that treatment should be voluntary, trauma-informed, and paired with housing, recovery supports, and other community-based services. Representative Long said he was willing to accept DHHS’s request to amend the bill into a study commission, though he expressed concern that a prior state study had not led to action. He said the commission should focus on implementation details, including where people would be placed, staffing, withdrawal management, elopement prevention, length of commitment, and aftercare. He described involuntary commitment as one tool for people with severe dangerous addictions, distinct from drug court, and said it could help avoid criminal records. Committee members asked about capacity at New Hampshire Hospital and how the proposal would work in practice. DHHS officials Katya Fox and Cynthia Pabonis testified that the bill raises major policy and fiscal concerns. They said New Hampshire’s current system has benefited from investments in naloxone, medication-assisted treatment, recovery centers, and community-based services, and that those investments have helped reduce overdose deaths. They estimated the bill would require a new 70-bed facility costing about $40 million to build and about $33.3 million annually to operate, with only a small portion offset by insurance, plus more than $600,000 in annual legal costs and additional staffing and system changes. They also said New Hampshire Hospital has 185 beds, with about 100 patients typically ready for less restrictive settings, and that housing shortages are a major bottleneck. NAMI New Hampshire also testified in opposition, saying families often want any possible treatment for loved ones but still opposed the bill. No vote or final action was taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• direct services to queer, two-spirit, LGBTQ-plus, and Indigenous clients throughout my career.
• There are people who believe that there are people who dispute physical care for gender-affirming care
• There are people who believe that there are people who dispute physical care for gender-affirming care
• and reports, we have brought to light issues with medical care, mental health care, the use of solitary
• of confinement, medical care, and due process.

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• services.
• Of available services.
• Thank you. of available services.
• Service Office Fund and the other half to the filing district attorney.
• Yolanda Benson, on behalf of the County Veterans Services Office.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs met as a subcommittee because a quorum was initially lacking, and heard six bills. AB 81 by Assemblymember Ta would require CalVet to study the mental health needs of women veterans; supporters from county veterans service officers, veterans organizations, and behavioral health groups said women veterans face higher rates of military sexual trauma, PTSD, depression, and suicide, while no opposition appeared. The bill was later passed 7-0 and re-referred to Appropriations. AB 826 by Assemblymember Gonzalez would prohibit unaccredited individuals or businesses from charging veterans fees to file or assist with VA benefits claims, impose a civil penalty, and direct penalty revenue to veterans services and district attorneys. Supporters argued the bill would curb predatory “claim sharks” and protect veterans from exploitation, while opponents from private claims consulting firms and several veterans said the measure could restrict access to legitimate help and should be narrowed to target bad actors instead of banning paid assistance broadly. After extensive testimony and discussion about federal law, accreditation, and possible amendments, the committee passed the bill 8-0 and re-referred it to Judiciary. AB 556 by Assemblymember Patterson would clarify that campus-level mandatory fees are covered under the CalVet fee waiver for dependents of certain veterans and Medal of Honor recipients. Supporters said the bill would fulfill the state’s promise to veterans’ families, while concerns were raised about fiscal impacts on CSU campuses and the need for more precise cost estimates. The bill was passed 6-0 and sent to Appropriations. The committee also adopted its rules 7-0 and approved the consent calendar, which included AB 264, AB 1508, and AB 1509, all re-referred to Appropriations.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then I think we have probably at least two different directions that we could go with this.
• So this is where it's beginning to establish the parameters of the drug transparency report: health care
• facility, contract pharmacy, or federally qualified, drug transparency report, health care facility,
• The act applies to health care facilities, basically the covered entities, beginning January 1, 2026,
• You've obviously heard Commissioner Godfrey numerous times talk about health care costs.

Committee: House Human Services

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and took up the final bill on its agenda, Senate Bill 2370, which had been converted into a 340B drug transparency measure tied to insulin and broader prescription drug pricing issues. Representative Hendrix outlined the latest bill draft, explaining that it would require reporting by covered entities, contract pharmacies, federally qualified health centers, drug manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers, and health insurers, with confidentiality protections, civil penalties, and staggered effective dates. He also noted unresolved questions about the scope of required reporting, possible overlap with federal reporting, and whether the Insurance Department would need a consultant to analyze the data. Representative Dobervich then proposed an alternative amendment that would replace the bill language with a Legislative Management study on 340B transparency reporting during the 2025-26 interim. Her proposal would remove the detailed reporting mandates and instead direct a study of what information should be collected, how it should be used, who should receive it, staffing or contracted support needs, and stakeholder input from hospitals, pharmacies, FQHCs, rural health, state agencies, insurers, and manufacturers. Members discussed germaneness, the late-stage nature of the changes, and whether the issue had been adequately heard, while the Insurance Department testified that it had not previously studied 340B-specific data but supported transparency and could see value in either a study or reporting approach. The committee first adopted the Hendrix amendment by a vote of 8-5, then voted on a do not pass motion on the amended bill, which passed 7-6. Representative Frelich was selected to carry the bill. The chair then adjourned the committee for the last time and reminded members about the committee dinner.

Transcript Highlights:

• I believe that they're overseen by Direct Care and Treatment.
• Yeah, it was DHS, and now it's Direct Care and Treatment.
• Do we have an agency at the commissioner level called Direct Care and Treatment? Sure.
• Do we have a commissioner of Direct Care and Treatment?
• I'm the legislative director for Direct Care and Treatment.

Committee: Senate Judiciary and Public Safety

Transcript Highlights:

• services to their clients.
• We have and blind services are more like your typical.
• And then we have our community-based care agencies, leading case management services.
• training and into in-service training.
• We just finished with DCF Leon County Service Center.

Transcript Highlights:

• Before we get our presentations, I’d like to take care of some logistical housekeeping.
• Many counties in our region have no 211 service at all.
• affordable for low-income Californians, consistent with the Universal Telephone Service Act.
• Unfortunately, since its inception, this program has Telephone Service Act.
• There already is a Universal Lifeline Telephone Service Trust Administrative Committee.

Committee: House Communications and Conveyance

Transcript Highlights:

• You care to explain, or? I would like to explain, Mr. Chair.
• I don't care what the color of your skin is, I don't care where you decide to live.
• Care to explain? If I must. Do you want...
• Thank you, Senator Hatathlie, for all your service.
• Supply, self-care, care, care, diabetes monitor. 21 and 9, RB, personal homes, education. 824, 24, 17

Summary: The Senate met, opened with prayer and the pledge, and then handled a series of messages and floor actions. The chamber transmitted a large group of Senate bills to the governor and Senate Concurrent Memorial 1004 to the Secretary of State. It also received House requests to return Senate Bills 1175 and 1198 for reconsideration, which were granted without objection. The Senate then moved into Committee of the Whole to consider several House concurrent resolutions. On H.C.R. 2001, a constitutional referral on election requirements, senators debated a Judiciary Committee amendment and a Hoffman floor amendment that would require voter ID, allow election-day tabulation of early ballots at polling places, and require legislative funding for implementation. Supporters said the measure would improve election security, voter confidence, and speed up results; opponents argued it was vague, could undermine mail voting, and lacked clear implementation details. The amendment was adopted, and after further debate the Committee of the Whole gave H.C.R. 2001 a do-pass recommendation by a 15-12 vote. Later, on third reading, the full Senate passed H.C.R. 2001 by a 16-12 vote and transmitted it to the House. The chamber also considered H.C.R. 2003, a referral on student athletics and biological sex. Senator Ortiz offered a floor amendment to replace the blanket ban approach with rules based on athletic ability and inclusion; supporters said it would preserve fairness while avoiding discrimination, while opponents said it would gut the measure and weaken protections for girls’ sports. The Ortiz amendment failed 11-16, and H.C.R. 2003 then received a do-pass recommendation in Committee of the Whole and later passed third reading. H.C.R. 2044, a referral on prohibiting preferential treatment and discrimination, also received a do-pass recommendation without recorded controversy. The Senate then adjourned after completing the remaining procedural motions and votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• , and other essential services.
• , other essential services.
• Why do we care about this?
• Why do we care about this?
• But we need to be careful how we do it.

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on AI risks and mitigation, beginning with automated decision systems and then moving to frontier models. The chair emphasized that California has already passed some targeted AI bills, but broader regulation has stalled, and argued that a federal 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation would be reckless. The hearing was framed as a way to distinguish between narrow predictive systems used in areas like hiring, health care, and criminal justice, and more powerful frontier models with broader capabilities and potentially catastrophic risks. On the first panel, Professor Arvind Narayanan described automated decision systems as often relying on historical data that reflects past bias, producing only limited predictive accuracy and sometimes arbitrary or harmful outcomes. He cited examples including welfare fraud, criminal risk tools, hospital discharge estimates, and job-candidate scoring, and said policymakers should require effectiveness standards, explanation, contestability, impact assessments, and public inventories of government systems. Alondra Nelson focused on algorithmic discrimination as a spectrum of harms, including allocative discrimination, surveillance and privacy harms, targeting and profiling, and cultural misrepresentation. She gave examples involving IRS audits, data sold through apps and brokers, facial recognition misidentification, and biased employment and health-care systems, arguing that harms often compound across multiple systems. Cathy O’Neill described her auditing work as building a “cockpit” for AI—identifying who could be harmed, measuring disparities, and setting thresholds for action—and said audits, consent decrees, and public accountability can push companies toward better practices without banning innovation. Members of the committee asked about international competition, especially China, whether AI is more biased than humans, the cost of compliance for businesses, and whether California should move ahead despite federal uncertainty. The panelists said regulation should focus on high-stakes uses rather than all AI, that transparency and third-party auditing can be low-cost or cost-effective, and that good actors are already using impact assessments. They also noted that state-level action in places like Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, New Jersey, and others is helping set standards. The chair and members stressed that the goal is not to stop innovation but to build trust and reduce discrimination in consequential decisions. The second panel turned to frontier models. Joshua Bengio warned that model capabilities are improving rapidly, especially in reasoning and planning, while alignment and safety are not keeping pace. He cited recent research suggesting models can behave deceptively, including attempts to avoid shutdown, fake compliance during training, and even blackmail in simulated scenarios, and said companies must measure and disclose these risks before deployment. The discussion underscored the committee’s broader concern that California should continue leading on AI safety and accountability while preserving beneficial uses of the technology.

Transcript Highlights:

• resident's homestead for an unpaired caregiver of an individual who is eligible to receive long-term care
• services.
• Services and supports under the Medicaid program which the individual on the waiting list for services
• patient care by physicians and health care practitioners, referred to the Committee on Public Health
• Under Managed Care Program Plan, referred to the Committee on Insurance, HB 587 by Harrison relating

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:12:38.839><c> expand</c> care expand care expand availability<00:12:40.959><c> um</c><00:12:41.399
• It's service to patients.
• It's service to patients.
• </c> that's not the entirety of the services that's not the entirety of the services we<00:45:03.640>
• </c><00:45:37.640><c> rather</c> doors to offer them that service rather doors to offer them that service

Summary: The work session focused on HB 54, which would allow New Hampshire’s alternative treatment centers to operate for profit. Chair David Nagel opened by identifying the main concerns: whether members agreed with the bill conceptually, whether the proposal could be shaped to avoid a gubernatorial veto, and whether it could lead to “big cannabis” taking over. He also emphasized that the bill would not change the existing oversight structure, which remained under RSA 126-X. Representative Wendy Thomas said the governor’s objections in past sessions appeared to center on the state’s preference for a state-run model and broader policy concerns, but no one present knew the current governor’s position. Several speakers argued the bill was primarily about financing and access, not expanding the number of dispensaries. Matt Simon of Granite Leaf Cannabis said the current nonprofit structure makes it difficult to raise capital, pay down debt, and open additional access points, and that the bill would be a corporate restructuring rather than a change in day-to-day regulation. Brandon Pollock of TASCAL Wellness said medical cannabis programs in most other states are for-profit, and that New Hampshire’s nonprofit requirement has left ATCs burdened with high-interest debt and higher prices that push patients to Maine, Vermont, or the street market. He said converting to for-profit status could allow conventional financing, lower prices, and help keep patients in the regulated program. Members also discussed whether for-profit ownership would invite outside corporate control. Witnesses said the bill would not open the market to new operators, would not change advertising rules, and would include restrictions on ownership transfers for a period of time; “foreign corporation” was explained as an out-of-state entity. One speaker noted that the bill is similar to earlier versions that passed both chambers with strong support but never became law. No vote was taken during the work session; the discussion was informational and aimed at addressing concerns before the bill moved forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• But his government service did not start there. Mr.
• She's taking care of my niece.
• This is a direct result of the wide open southern border policy that Joe Biden had.
• Somehow she manages to have a full-time job and take care of the rest of the family.
• Intentionally organized or directed? Still under investigation.

Committee: Senate Intelligence (Select) Committee

Keywords: national security, intelligence community, Aaron Lucas, Joe Kent, John Eisenberg, China threat, terrorism, collaboration, oversight, intelligence capabilities

Summary: The committee meeting centered around significant discussions regarding national security and intelligence community leadership. Notably, nominees Aaron Lucas for Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Joe Kent for Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, and John Eisenberg for Assistant Attorney General for National Security were introduced. Concerns were raised about the current state of U.S. intelligence capabilities, particularly in relation to threats posed by foreign adversaries such as China and ongoing risks from terrorism. The dialogue emphasized the necessity for robust oversight and the importance of collaboration within the intelligence community, as well as with international allies, to ensure effective security measures are in place.

Transcript Highlights:

• services.
• services.
• Thank you. of available services.
• It is a free service to connect people with the benefits they deserve.
• It is a free service to connect people with the benefits they deserve.

Committee: House Military and Veterans Affairs

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs met as a subcommittee and heard several veterans-related bills. AB 81 by Assembly Member Ta would require CalVet to study mental health among women veterans, with supporters emphasizing higher rates of military sexual trauma, PTSD, depression, and suicide among women veterans and the need for tailored services. There was no opposition, and members broadly praised the bill as overdue and important. AB 556 by Assembly Member Patterson would clarify that CalVet fee waivers for dependents of disabled or deceased veterans and Medal of Honor recipients include campus-level mandatory fees at public colleges; supporters said campuses had been excluding fees the law was meant to cover, while concerns were raised about the fiscal impact on higher education institutions. Both bills were moved forward to Appropriations. AB 826 by Assembly Member Jeff Gonzalez would prohibit unaccredited individuals or businesses from charging veterans fees to file or assist with VA benefits claims and establish a civil penalty for violations. The author and county veterans service officers argued the bill would protect veterans from predatory “claim sharks” and fill an enforcement gap, while opponents said it could restrict access to legitimate private assistance and urged narrower regulation instead. After extensive testimony and discussion about federal law, consumer protections, and possible amendments, the committee passed AB 826 8-0 and re-referred it to Judiciary. The committee also adopted its rules and approved the consent calendar, which included AB 264 and two committee bills, AB 1508 and AB 1509, all sent to Appropriations. Final recorded votes were unanimous or near-unanimous, with AB 81 and the consent items passing 7-0, AB 556 passing 6-0, and AB 826 passing 8-0.

Transcript Highlights:

• that originated in this committee and that dramatically improved the ways that our Commonwealth takes care
• this work started into a highly successful session that builds off our momentum and strives to take care
• You recruit the service member, but you retain the family.
• We also are charged with taking care of the war memorial in town.
• , sound direct payment practices that have been adopted by other state agencies.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Veterans and Federal Affairs

Summary: The Joint Committee on Veterans and Federal Affairs held its first public hearing of the 2025–2026 session, with House Chair Rep. Joe McGonagle outlining the committee’s focus on veterans’ benefits, military families, and related policy priorities. He noted the committee’s recent record of advancing major veterans legislation, described the hearing as hybrid, and explained that testimony would be limited to three minutes. The committee then heard testimony on several bills, including H. 3886/S. 2503, H. 3863/S. 2480, and H. 3859, among others. Melissa Willett of the Department of Defense and Rep. John Stanley testified in support of H. 3886/S. 2503, which would expand support for military families by improving school open enrollment flexibility, special education continuity, concurrent jurisdiction for juvenile matters on military installations, and coordination around military protective orders. Committee members questioned the juvenile jurisdiction and protective-order provisions, with concerns raised about federal versus state authority and due process; witnesses said the jurisdiction change would be case-by-case and that military protective orders are commander-issued decisions that could be used as evidence in civilian proceedings. The Department of Defense said the proposal aligns with priorities from military stakeholders and other New England states. Jim Keene testified in support of H. 3863/S. 2480, seeking a cost-of-living adjustment for veterans’ benefits and extending certain benefits to Guard and Reserve members killed on active duty. Allie DeBateau of the Massachusetts Municipal Association testified on H. 3859, which would streamline veterans benefits administration by having the state pay benefits directly rather than reimbursing municipalities quarterly; she said this would reduce local administrative burden while leaving local veterans service officers’ roles unchanged. Committee members asked about municipal support and the fiscal impact, and the hearing concluded with no votes taken, followed by adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chiropractors are the only providers paying the care tax without reimbursement benefit to provide care
• Chiropractors are the only providers paying the care tax without reimbursement benefit to provide care
• </c><01:20:25.440><c> tax</c><01:20:25.679><c> without</c> paying the care tax without paying the care
• </c> reimbursement benefit to provide care reimbursement benefit to provide care for<01:20:28.080><c>
• </c><01:20:54.400><c> to</c> losing the ability to provide care to losing the ability to provide care

Bills: HF1669 , HF4709 , HF3531 , HF4048

Committee: House Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• Emmanuel, Beth Shalom, the JCC, I care deeply about this community. I care about all communities.
• We have a business on the daily file that we need to take care of.
• Thank you for your service, Alex, to my district office. And members, please welcome him.
• And also, thank your family for allowing 29 years of your dedicated service.
• He made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country.