Transcript Highlights:

• I'm happy to see that the conversation is starting to change.
• And so that is where this conversation, and your robustness...
• This is where the retrofitting conversation comes into play.
• But now the conversation, and I turn it to you all to set the policy is, Now the conversation, and I
• So that is an interesting conversation to have.

Summary: The hearing focused on California wildfire resilience, with the first panel discussing statewide funding, policy, and strategic priorities, and the second panel shifting to home hardening and defensible space. The LAO outlined the state’s wildfire risk, the large increase in resilience spending in recent years, and the fact that most funding has been one-time rather than ongoing. Testimony emphasized that wildfire risk varies greatly by region, that the state must balance response spending with prevention, and that success should be measured more carefully than by acres treated alone. Witnesses also noted the importance of local, federal, utility, and Proposition 4 funding sources, as well as the need for long-term maintenance and strategic prioritization rather than scattered projects. Cal Fire leadership and other witnesses stressed that California’s wildfire problem is not uniform: forested areas, chaparral, and wildland-urban interface communities require different strategies. In Northern California and forested watersheds, speakers emphasized fuels reduction, prescribed and cultural burning, strategic fuel breaks, watershed protection, and maintaining forest health. In Southern California, testimony focused on wind-driven fires, ember intrusion, ignition prevention along roads and power lines, and the limits of large-scale vegetation clearing. Several witnesses argued that the state should invest where it can leverage local and regional partnerships, support capacity-building programs like Regional Forest and Fire Capacity, and improve data systems to track treatment effectiveness and project outcomes. Members repeatedly pressed witnesses on how to prioritize limited funds, asking what should be done more of, less of, and first. The chair argued that protecting homes and communities through hardening and defensible space should be a major priority, especially near structures, while also acknowledging the need for broader landscape work and watershed protection. There was discussion of incentives such as insurance discounts, property tax treatment, and community certification for hardened homes, along with the need for multiple payers rather than relying on the state alone. Cal Fire reported new and expanding data tools, including treatment trackers, defensible space inspection dashboards, and a fuels treatment effectiveness program that evaluates whether nearby treatments affected wildfire behavior. No votes were taken because the hearing was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• They would have a conversation with the guardian about what that relationship is.
• They would have a conversation with the guardian about what that relationship is.
• They would have a conversation with the guardian about what that relationship is.
• The board has been part of conversations and supported APBA.
• children that was the first conversation children that was the first conversation the<00:38:56.520

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee approved the January 21 minutes and then reviewed committee rules, emphasizing deadlines for handouts, testimony notices, and substantive amendments, along with a warning that disruptive signs, noise, or demonstrations could lead to removal from the hearing room. The chair said the rules would be shared with the full House and noted the committee would operate with quorum and not tolerate chaos. The committee then heard a presentation from Tammy Baker Olson, the state program administrator for the Guardian ad Litem Board, on the program’s structure and budget request. She explained that guardians ad litem are independent voices for children’s best interests in child protection and family court cases, not attorneys or direct service providers. She said the program operates statewide, with 243 employees, and in 2024 advocated for more than 12,000 children, attended over 30,000 court proceedings, and filed reports in over 16,000 hearings. She also described specialized Family Court and Indian Child Welfare divisions, efforts to address racial disparities, and training requirements for guardians. Members asked about mileage and travel demands, the distinction between a child’s attorney and a guardian ad litem, caseloads, re-entry outcomes, the move from contractor/volunteer models to employee-based staffing, and the role of volunteers. Olson said most guardians use personal vehicles and mileage reimbursement, average caseloads are about 24, and the program has not seen a statewide increase in cases but does face staffing vacancies and turnover in some areas. She said the board believes the employee model improved advocacy and supervision, while the program is rebuilding a modest volunteer pool. She also said the program supports Indian Family Preservation Act-related work and has a formal process for handling conflicts of interest, which should be raised immediately to a supervisor rather than waiting for a complaint process.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so the conversations, and I know Mr.
• I think if you get beyond into general revenue conversation, you are in a tax conversation.
• I think if you get beyond into general revenue conversation, you are in a tax conversation.
• Look, I think the conversation is what we've been wanting.
• Look, I think the conversation is what we've been wanting.

Keywords: 965, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• conversations uh, around affordability. conversations uh, around affordability.
• , again um appreciate the conversation, again um appreciate the conversation, appreciate<00:19:21.440
• But I have a feeling that's not the conversation we're having today.
• feeling that's not the conversation feeling that's not the conversation we're<00:31:11.520> having
• This is a stop any of that conversation.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard House File 76, as amended by the adopted A1 amendment, and the chair moved the bill to be re-referred to the general register. The bill would limit the amount investor-owned utilities can charge ratepayers for executive compensation, capping recoverable pay for the top 10 executives at the governor’s salary. Representative Greenman argued the measure would protect customers from paying for lavish executive pay and said it would not affect what executives are paid, only what can be recovered from ratepayers. She cited recent Public Utilities Commission action and ongoing rate cases as evidence the issue is real and recurring. Supportive testimony came from a Minneapolis resident describing financial hardship and rising utility bills, a local worker who said customers have no choice of utility provider and should not fund monopoly executive pay, and advocates from the Energy and Policy Institute and Utility Reform Now, who said ratepayers should not subsidize excessive compensation and that the bill is a targeted reform. Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy opposed the bill’s premise by defending the current regulatory process. Their representatives said the PUC already reviews executive compensation in rate cases, generally allows only limited recovery, and has used that process for decades. Xcel also emphasized its affordability programs and said executives help secure savings and investments for customers. Members discussed whether the legislature should set a bright-line rule or leave the issue to the PUC. Representative Greenman said the bill is needed because the PUC process can take years and the legislature should establish a clear standard for all investor-owned utilities. Some members supported the bill as a response to an affordability crisis and the lack of consumer choice, while others said the legislature should focus on broader energy-cost issues and existing regulatory tools. The committee did not take a final vote on the bill in the portion of the meeting provided, but the amendment was adopted and the bill was moved for re-referral to the general register.

Transcript Highlights:

• right conversation.
• I still think that there needs to be a sincere conversation.
• And the conversation is, again,... about consultation.
• Chair, and thanks everybody for this robust conversation.
• And I will have many more conversations around this.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, so again, I mean, you know, we can have conversations, but that is already quite...
• Again, I think we're having a lot of conversations with employers, especially about misunderstandings
• but like that is already conversations but like that is already quite<00:14:53.600> um<00:14:
• are going is to the conversations are going is to identify<00:15:12.079> when<00:15:12.199>
• I'm still having conversations about it, but I think we certainly want to make sure that workers...

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• This conversation was December of 2021.
• I investigated after the conversation, and then what did we do?
• That is a pretty normal conversation that we have, and certainly as lawmakers we often have conversations
• this conversation, told you who you were talking to.
• Did those follow-up conversations happen?

Transcript Highlights:

• We would appreciate more conversations with the author's office. and requires significant changes to
• And so, policymakers have already really, there's been a lot of conversation about all those issues.
• We're happy to continue conversations with industry. We know that they have.
• This is a long-term conversation that I do intend to have.
• We do look forward to constructively engaging in a conversation should this bill move forward.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Ranking Member, and I appreciate our conversations yesterday as well. I appreciate your time.
• I enjoyed our conversation yesterday as well. No, there is no...
• I enjoyed our conversation yesterday as well.
• I want to thank all the members for our conversation on this bill.
• And thank you, Representative, for our conversation yesterday.

Summary: The Government Operations Subcommittee heard several measures focused on government structure, oversight, and public policy designations. The most debated bill was HJR 1325, which proposed a constitutional amendment to create a statewide Commissioner of Government Efficiency, abolish the lieutenant governor office and the Government Efficiency Task Force, and eliminate the constitutional requirement for an Auditor General appointment. Sponsors said the new commissioner would be a watchdog over waste, fraud, and abuse across state and local government, while opponents raised concerns about cost, single-subject issues, lack of implementation details, and whether existing oversight structures were sufficient. After extensive debate, the resolution was reported favorably by a recorded vote. The committee also approved HB 575, which redesignates the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America in Florida statute, and HB 1445, which requires certain state officials and agency heads to have stronger ties to Florida and, for some positions, to live in the county where their agency headquarters is located. HB 1445 drew questions about practicality and whether a proximity standard would be better than a strict county requirement, but the sponsor said he would continue working on that issue. Both bills were reported favorably, with HB 1445 passing unanimously. In addition, the committee unanimously approved HB 259, designating August 21 as Fentanyl Awareness and Education Day, with supporters emphasizing the need for public education about fentanyl overdoses. The committee also passed CS/HB 29, the public records and meetings bill linked to the social work licensure compact, which creates confidentiality and meeting exemptions needed for the compact to operate. Public testimony on that measure was supportive, and it too was reported favorably without opposition.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think by having a stronger conversation, so to speak, you're helping, and you're going to have a better
• so to speak you're you're conversation so to speak you're you're helping<00:15:57.519> um<00:
• The other is when you've got management and rank and file both in the conversation and the decision,
• No, I'm for the intent, and that's why we have these conversations: to all the viewpoints, looking around
• The other is when you've got management and rank and file both in the conversation and the decision,

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 289, authored by Representative Quam, and adopted a technical A1 amendment before moving the bill forward. Quam explained that the bill is intended to create a mechanism for frontline state employees, faculty, and management to identify waste, inefficiency, and possible savings in agency budgets, with a portion of any savings going back to the state budget and the remainder placed in a special fund for mission-related spending decided by a joint committee. He said the idea grew out of earlier faculty union discussions and that the bill had previously passed with bipartisan support, though it was underused when first enacted. Members generally praised the goal of empowering employees and improving efficiency, but several raised concerns about the bill’s practical operation and low historical use. Representative Jones asked why uptake had been limited and whether current conditions would improve participation; Quam responded that larger budgets and more employee engagement could make the program more useful now. Representative Freiberg and Representative Bonner both supported the concept but questioned whether employees would understand budget constraints and whether the structure might discourage managers from saving money intentionally. Quam argued that employee input would improve decisions, morale, and credibility, and could help justify needed investments. Representative Koznick asked how the bill interacted with the Odyssey Fund, and staff clarified that the two are separate accounts and do not directly affect each other. Representative Koznick also objected to comments he viewed as attacking the administration, and the chair reminded members not to impute motives. Representative Kosnik/Quam indicated openness to future improvements, but Representative Bonner said she was not ready to support the bill in its current form because of concerns about the approval process through MMB and the Legislative Audit Commission. Despite those reservations, the committee ultimately voted to send House File 289, as amended, to the General Register.

Transcript Highlights:

• about the Campus Free Expression Act and more. and conversation about the Campus Free Expression Act
• Were there any conversations, or is there a percentage?
• be a courageous conversation because it's going to affect every party.
• Courageous conversation. Representative Valdes, can you bring it in front? I will. I will.
• This is only about charter, conversion charter schools. That is the bill. Thank you.

Summary: The Education Administration Subcommittee met with a quorum and took up two bills. The first, PCS for HB 725 on political activity at public institutions of higher education, would require colleges and universities to notify students and employees about existing campus political activity rules at orientation and on their websites, and to adopt standardized policies through the State Board of Education and Board of Governors. The sponsor said the bill is intended to mirror federal IRS/501(c)(3) guidelines, protect institutions from risking federal funding, and clarify what is and is not allowed; supporters framed it as an awareness and free-expression measure, while opponents warned it could chill speech, create vague enforcement standards, and lead to unintended consequences for students and faculty. Public testimony was largely opposed, with speakers from student, civil liberties, education, and advocacy groups raising free-speech concerns. The committee passed the bill 13-5. The second measure, PCS for HB 1437, addressed disputes under mutual management plans between conversion charter schools and district school boards. The sponsor said the bill fills a gap by providing a clearer dispute-resolution path through mediation by the Department of Education or, ultimately, an administrative law judge at DOAH. Members asked about appeal rights and whether DOE is perceived as favoring charter schools; the sponsor said the bill simply sets the process for the current issue and that the administrative law judge provision serves as the final step. There was no public testimony, and the bill was reported favorably 18-0.

Transcript Highlights:

• Did we finalize our conversations on the other two items there? Mr.
• Does that suggest any further conversation? No, just a point of clarification.
• That's a whole different conversation. To me, that's a whole different conversation.
• That was an interesting conversation. Okay.
• Let's strike it and we know that it'll be further conversation.

Bills: SB2399

Keywords: mental health, psychiatric treatment, reimbursement, medical assistance, legislative report, 908, all

Summary: The committee reconvened and first reconsidered House Bill 1612, the aerospace medical and mental health support center bill. Senator Cleary offered an amendment to reduce the general fund appropriation from $500,000 to $250,000 and require the university or project sponsors to find the remaining funding from other sources. The amendment passed, and the bill was then recommended do pass as amended, with members citing concerns about university funding, but others supporting the project as a one-time seed investment. The committee also discussed a possible future FMAP increase beginning October 1, 2026, which could reduce general fund costs by roughly $9 million, though members noted the figures were still preliminary and could be addressed later if needed. The committee then returned to Human Services budget items, including early childhood and child care funding, a community cultural center grant, and several other adjustments. Members discussed reducing the “best in class” amount, changes to child care grants and quality/infrastructure funding, and clarifying that prior child care assistance appropriations were in fact being spent. They also agreed to reduce the 1915(i) Medicaid waiver line by $2 million, with the understanding that the entitlement would still be funded as needed. The committee also considered taking guardianship funding out of House Bill 1012 because a separate bill, Senate Bill 2029, would move that funding elsewhere; members agreed that removing it from the budget could help the overall bill and could be restored if the separate bill failed. Several study amendments were discussed. Senator Cleary proposed adding a maternal health study related to prenatal services, doulas, midwives, and Medicaid, and members expressed support. The committee also discussed a software/case-management study proposal, but the department said it had not requested it and would not support it as presented, so members leaned against advancing it unless the department first evaluated it. Another amendment would authorize the department to work with the city of Grafton on a long-term plan for the LSTC campus and require a report back to the legislature; members supported that as legislative intent. The committee also agreed to remove a truancy study section for later conference discussion, and it reviewed other possible study ideas, including assistive technology, before adjourning to await updated long sheets and bill text.

Transcript Highlights:

• reported that there are conversations reported that there are conversations between<00:10:53.320
• with Dees and having conversations with Dees and having<00:27:57.480> conversations<00:27:58.200
• Do we have any more conversation? The motion before us is a motion to pass.
• the way I came away from my conversation the way I came away from my conversation with<00:34:46.440
• from that conversation.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:53:32.720> with forward to having conversations with forward to having conversations with
• We had a conversation, and we identified that the entire focus of this was children's health.
• Yeah, I have had those conversations.
• He said he would have another conversation with them and see if there was some wiggle room.
• I'll I'll I'll have another conversation I'll I'll I'll have another conversation with<01:07:19.039

Bills: HF737, HF247, HF325, HF1330

Keywords: lead, cadmium, consumer products, safety regulation, retail restrictions, motor sports, nonoxygenated gasoline, fuel regulations, storage requirements, racing events, HF325, flavored nitrous oxide, nitrous oxide, whippets, laughing gas, retail sales, consumer protection, misdemeanor, commerce, Minnesota Statutes chapter 325F

Transcript Highlights:

• One is based on conversations here. I just want to... I do have a couple questions.
• One is based on conversations here.
• The impacted departments have been having conversations with stakeholders.
• We're happy to have that conversation.
• So I know that we have had this conversation many times before.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up the May Revision update on Proposition 98 and the school rainy-day fund. The Department of Finance said the minimum guarantee rises by $6.4 billion over the Governor’s Budget across the three-year window, with lower average daily attendance projections offsetting some of the revenue gains. Finance also described a reduced $3.9 billion settle-up proposal, increased deposits into the Public School System Stabilization Account, and an ending reserve balance of about $10.3 billion. The LAO said the revenue and LCFF adjustments were reasonable, but urged the Legislature to be cautious about delaying settle-up payments and to consider more budget resiliency, including larger cushions or other tools to protect ongoing programs. Members then questioned the administration and LAO about the size of the settle-up, the rationale for the reserve deposit, declining enrollment, and how lower attendance is creating savings that can be redirected to other school priorities. The LAO said the May Revision’s mix of one-time and ongoing spending was generally reasonable but recommended keeping a strong cushion and considering alternatives such as advance payments or pension-related savings. Questions also focused on how the May Revision’s funding mix affects districts if revenues weaken, and on the treatment of special education, discretionary block grants, and paid family leave costs for LEAs and community colleges. The committee next heard the community colleges portion of the budget. Finance described a higher SCFF COLA, increased apportionment costs, a student support block grant, deferred maintenance, Common Cloud, Calbright, credit for prior learning, and a one-time adult learner demonstration project. The Chancellor’s Office supported the core investments but asked for more funding for enrollment growth, changes to the SCFF growth formula, and a COLA for Student Equity and Achievement. The LAO recommended funding the statutory COLA increase, noted a $52 million current-year apportionment shortfall not yet included in the May Revision, and suggested the Legislature could instead direct some funds to enrollment growth, categorical COLAs, or one-time uses. Members also clarified how COLA and hold-harmless rules apply to different community college districts. Finally, the committee reviewed the proposed state implementation of the federal Workforce Pell program. Finance proposed one-time funding for the Student Aid Commission and Cradle to Career data work, plus trailer bill changes to set up state approval of eligible programs. CSAC said the program is promising but highly complex, with new federal rules just released and significant data, regulatory, and systems work still needed; it said the state will not be ready by July 1 and that ongoing funding will likely be necessary. The LAO agreed that implementation will require careful trailer bill language and noted that ongoing administrative costs remain unresolved. Members asked about other states’ approaches and the practical effect on short-term workforce programs in California.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I appreciated the conversation that we had yesterday.
• And I appreciated the conversation that we had yesterday.
• Well, thank you, everyone, for the robust conversation.
• We are happy to have further conversations on that process.
• But what this behavior is, is the conversion.

Summary: The committee heard several bills, with the most detailed discussion focused on AB 316, AB 251, AB 474, AB 1201, AB 464, and AB 614. AB 316 would prevent AI developers or deployers from arguing in civil cases that an AI system’s alleged autonomy absolves them of responsibility. Supporters framed it as a narrow guardrail to protect families, especially children, from harms like dangerous chatbots and deepfakes; opponents, including TechNet and the Chamber of Progress, raised concerns about possible strict-liability implications. The bill was moved out of committee to Privacy and Consumer Protection. AB 251 would let judges lower the burden of proof in elder abuse cases when a skilled nursing facility or RCFE intentionally destroys evidence. Supporters said the measure is needed because elder abuse victims are often unable to testify and records are vulnerable to spoliation, while opponents argued existing sanctions are sufficient and warned of more litigation. The bill passed, with committee members emphasizing the vulnerability of elder abuse victims. AB 474 sought to expand nonprofit home-sharing programs, including tax incentives for low-income homeowners and changes to housing law and lodger rules. Supporters said it would help older adults and low-income Californians avoid homelessness, but several members and the California Apartment Association raised concerns about removing lodger-law protections for homeowners; the author committed to keep working on the issue. The bill passed to Human Services. AB 1201 would give courts discretion to provide family reunification services to parents with certain violent felony convictions, rather than applying an automatic bypass. Supporters from Starting Over Inc. described personal experiences with permanent family separation and argued the bill would give parents a fair chance when the conviction is unrelated to child safety. Some members supported the measure but questioned whether domestic violence histories should be treated differently; the author said the bill still allows courts to deny services when reunification would endanger a child. The bill passed to Human Services. AB 464 addressed sexual abuse and retaliation in state prisons by extending reporting time after release, adding 90-day monitoring after reports, barring rehiring of confirmed abusers, and strengthening reporting and anti-retaliation rules. Survivors testified about abuse, retaliation, and failures in CDCR’s response; the bill passed to Appropriations. AB 614 would standardize the Government Claims Act filing deadline at one year for all claims. The author and supporters argued the current six-month deadline for injury and wrongful death claims is too short for victims to learn the process, find counsel, and gather evidence, while businesses often get a full year. A civil rights attorney and a family member of a deceased jail detainee testified in support, describing how the current deadline can block meritorious claims. The bill was presented for committee consideration as the hearing continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• Jonathan for leading that conversation Jonathan for leading that conversation for<00:42:00.560><
• We had a conversation with them.
• We had a conversation with them. foods. We had a conversation with them.
• <01:08:48.400> of back to the previous conversation of back to the previous conversation of
• is opportunity for larger conversations. is opportunity for larger conversations.

Keywords: This meeting was pulled from back ups and uploaded in it's entirety due to technical issues., 958, all

Summary: The Make America Healthy Kentucky Task Force met with a quorum, approved the minutes, and then heard a presentation on the state’s “food is medicine” work from Kentucky Hospital Association and Kentucky Department of Agriculture leaders, including Jim Muser, Holly Harris, and Commissioner Jonathan Shell. The chair framed the discussion around personal wellness, injury prevention, and the broader goal of improving health through better sleep, nutrition, and activity, then asked the presenters to describe current initiatives and any policy changes needed. The witnesses described a partnership linking hospitals and Kentucky farmers to improve health outcomes while supporting rural agriculture. They said the effort has moved beyond the pilot stage and now includes more than 40 hospitals statewide, with programs such as healthier hospital cafeterias, grab-and-go options, farmers markets at hospital sites, subsidized CSA boxes for employees, and medically tailored meals or groceries for patients with chronic conditions. ARH was highlighted as a leading model, with local food procurement, employee wellness efforts, and measurable outcome pilots, including a Russell County Hospital project focused on diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. They also emphasized barriers to scaling the model, including fragmented short-term funding, lack of reimbursement for food-as-medicine programs, and burdensome procurement and testing requirements that can make it difficult for small farmers to participate. The presenters said hospitals are using their own funds or temporary grants to sustain programs and argued that policy changes are needed to simplify sourcing, expand reimbursement pathways, and support clinical measurement of outcomes. No votes or formal actions beyond approving the minutes were taken during the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• would just to the point of conversations would just to the point of conversations I<00:10:03.120
• I appreciate that offer, and we will have those conversations.
• <00:28:48.840> with in place because of conversations with in place because of conversations
• It sounds like conversations are ongoing about language.
• conversations<00:58:28.839> are<00:58:29.000> ongoing sounds like conversations are

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We're certainly open to additional conversations about appropriate guardrails for LPR.
• Unfortunately, that didn't work out for us, but we can have the conversation here.
• Unfortunately, that didn't work out for us, but we can have the conversation here.
• Um, but we can have the conversation Um, but we can have the conversation here.<00:13:59.600>
• Just, uh, a conversations on things.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House File 4205, as amended, was heard and then re-referred to the Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee. Representative Tabke said the bill is intended to protect Minnesotans’ private data tied to license plate reader systems by requiring warrants for out-of-state access, limiting dissemination of privately collected data, and adding reporting and oversight. He said the amendment was substantive and was adopted before the bill was discussed. Tabke also said he was open to changes, including revisiting the audit requirement, and noted the bill should still allow law enforcement to use license plate data for investigations. John Beeler of the ACLU of Minnesota testified in support, arguing that automatic license plate reader use has expanded far beyond what the 2015 statute contemplated and that third-party vendors have complicated data practices and accountability. He said the bill would modernize the law, require public disclosure of data-sharing relationships, and ensure private vendors are subject to data obligations. Jeff Potts of the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association opposed the bill as written, saying LPR technology has been important in investigations, including a recent child abduction case, but that the annual audit requirement would be too costly for small agencies and could make the technology unaffordable. He said the association was open to further discussions on guardrails but opposed the bill in its current form. Members raised questions about what data is actually returned by a license plate query versus an LPR hit, with Representative Duran arguing the bill conflated limited registration information with broader private data. Representative Feist supported the bill, saying the public should not trust Flock and that the issue is the cumulative tracking of people’s movements, not just isolated data points. Representative Hudson said the bill raised valid questions but might unintentionally hinder investigations, and he requested a roll call. The committee ultimately adopted the A1 amendment and moved the bill forward on a roll call vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• I look forward to respectful and constructive conversation.
• I look forward to respectful and constructive conversation.
• I look forward to the continued conversations on this.
• Have you had any conversations with them? Those conversations are ongoing.
• How we get there is going to be a conversation that's ongoing.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all