Transcript Highlights:

• How is this going to work differently if we spend taxpayer money on it when we've already spent the taxpayer
• </c><00:15:01.079><c> are</c> to pay pay even more the taxpayers are to pay pay even more the taxpayers
• </c><00:15:17.680><c> money</c> differently if we spend taxpayer money differently if we spend taxpayer
• money on the best management taxpayer money on the best management practices<00:15:23.040><c> and</c
• </c> Levy is subsidized by all the taxpayers Levy is subsidized by all the taxpayers of<00:47:55.839>

Bills: HF363 , HF2155 , HF1524 , HF821 , HF1677 , HF1292

Committee: House Agriculture Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• from the Arizona taxpayers.
• To taxpayers. Now let me just let that sink in a bit.
• So the Hobbs administration directed taxpayers to file their tax returns.
• taxpayers.
• And we know that it's a billion dollars a year that's going out of our taxpayers' coffers.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and several guest introductions and proclamations, including International Mother Language Day, Arizona Nurses’ Day, Environmental Day, Teamsters Local 104, and Arizona Aerospace Day. Attendance was recorded at 57 present, zero absent, and three excused. The chamber also announced committee meetings, bill referrals, and later adjourned until Thursday, February 12, 2026. The main floor action centered on House Bill 2785, a taxation measure tied to federal tax conformity. Members debated whether Arizona should conform to federal tax changes, with supporters arguing it would validate current tax forms and provide tax relief, and opponents warning it would mainly benefit wealthy taxpayers and corporations while reducing state revenue. The bill passed 32-26 with two not voting. The House then resolved into Committee of the Whole for two calendars of bills. In Committee of the Whole, the House advanced HB 2190, HB 2206, HB 2396, HB 2442, and HB 2448, all on health and human services topics, with amendments adopted on the first three. HB 2206 drew extended debate over SNAP payment error rates and whether the bill would impose an unfunded mandate and make benefits harder to access; supporters said it would reduce waste and save money, while opponents said it would set DES up for failure. HB 2396, which would restrict certain SNAP purchases, drew testimony over whether it would improve nutrition or unfairly limit low-income families and create a “food police” system. HB 2442 and HB 2448 also drew criticism over added SNAP work requirements and limits on agency waiver authority during recessions. The Committee later advanced HB 2688, HB 2689, HB 2690, HB 2796, and HB 2797, including bills on government staffing, hospital immigration-status data collection, unemployment benefits, SNAP eligibility/redeterminations, and fraud reporting. HB 2689 prompted sharp opposition over fears it would deter immigrants and mixed-status families from seeking medical care, while HB 2796 and HB 2797 were criticized as adding administrative burdens and duplicative SNAP checks. The House adopted the Committee of the Whole report, and a motion to amend the report to show HB 2689 failed was rejected 24-32.

Transcript Highlights:

• The taxpayers of the Minnetonka School District only.
• Standard when receiving taxpayer funds.
• They are common sense and firm expectations, and they respect our taxpayers and the tax dollars those
• taxpayers send us.
• They respect our taxpayers and the tax dollars that those people send us. So, thank you, Mr.

Bills: HF51 , HF1161 , HF2201 , HF2786 , HF1053

Committee: House Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> property taxpayers. property taxpayers.
• So, what would happen taxpayers, right?
• Like it's taxpayer dollars. right? Like it's taxpayer dollars.
• </c> governments and or their taxpayers governments and or their taxpayers depending<02:47:23.680><c>
• </c><02:51:25.680><c> before</c> sending back to local taxpayers before sending back to local taxpayers

Transcript Highlights:

• So Florida taxpayers will backfill whatever the delta is, right? Rate.
• State of Florida taxpayers, whom he and you are attempting to shield from...
• It's a bad deal for taxpayers.
• It is not the taxpayers of the state. We have to make those decisions.
• It is not the taxpayers of the state of Florida.

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Summary: The Senate Appropriations Committee took up SB 2-C, a major immigration enforcement bill sponsored by Senator Gruters and co-introduced by Senator Fine. Gruters described the measure as a broad crackdown on illegal immigration that would replace a single immigration officer with a State Board of Immigration Enforcement, create a $250 million grant program for local law enforcement, fund additional Department of Agriculture interdiction staff and facilities, expand pretrial detention for certain unauthorized immigrants, increase criminal penalties, require more cooperation with ICE, and eliminate in-state tuition eligibility for undocumented students. He and supporters framed the bill as a way to support law enforcement, deter illegal immigration, and align Florida with federal enforcement efforts. Committee questioning focused heavily on the bill’s education, detention, and enforcement provisions. Senators pressed Gruters and Fine on why the bill did not address employer sanctions or E-Verify, whether the tuition changes would affect students who had grown up in Florida, how sanctuary-policy enforcement would work, and whether the bill would create practical burdens for prosecutors, jails, and local officials. Gruters said he was open to working on E-Verify in regular session but not to amending this bill, and Fine argued the tuition repeal would apply to undocumented students who had qualified under existing law. Sheriff Bob Gualtieri testified in support, saying ICE bed capacity was still insufficient and that county jails needed more resources to honor detainers. Mark Schlachman of FSU Law offered historical context, noting prior state-federal cooperation efforts and warning of unintended consequences, while several public witnesses opposed the bill as unconstitutional, costly, and harmful to immigrant families and the economy. Opponents from the Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU of Florida, Florida Center for Fiscal and Economic Policy, Florida Policy Institute, AFL-CIO, and immigrant advocacy groups argued the bill would invite litigation, encourage racial profiling, harm the workforce and higher education, and punish law-abiding immigrants and their families. They emphasized that immigration is a federal matter, that K-12 education must be provided regardless of status, and that removing in-state tuition would reduce access to college and hurt Florida’s economy. Some speakers urged the committee to grandfather current students if the tuition waiver is repealed. The meeting ended with continued public testimony and no final vote reflected in the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this bill gives the voter the option to allow taxpayer-funded dollars to fund campaigns.
• Their taxpayer dollars is going to a candidate that wants to raise taxes, and they disagree with that
• Their taxpayer dollars is going to a candidate that wants to raise taxes and they disagree with that.
• “Going to their taxpayer dollars is going to a candidate that wants to raise taxes, and they disagree
• So this doesn’t require that taxpayer dollars necessarily go to any particular person.

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met on July 2, 2025, with a quorum present and took up eight agenda items, including four consent bills. The committee first approved the consent calendar, which included SB 280, SB 621, SB 851, and SB 852, all moving forward without objection. The committee then heard several bills from Senator Umberg focused on election administration and campaign finance, along with SB 408 on voter-roll maintenance. SB 249 would require county board of education elections to be consolidated with the statewide general election. Supporters, including the League of Women Voters, argued this would increase turnout and make those elections more representative; opponents, including Orange County education officials, argued it would override local control, increase costs, and add ballot fatigue. The bill passed 5-2 and was re-referred to the Committee on Education. SB 398 would make it a crime to pay or offer contingent payments or other valuable consideration to induce voting or voter registration, closing what supporters described as a loophole involving lotteries and incentives. It passed 5-0 as amended and was re-referred to the Committee on Public Safety. SB 42 would remove the state ban on public financing for campaigns in general law cities and counties, allowing local voters to decide whether to adopt such systems. Supporters from Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, and many local advocates said it would broaden participation and reduce the influence of big money; opponents raised concerns about taxpayer funding, guardrails, and local oversight. The bill passed 5-2 and was re-referred to Appropriations. Finally, SB 408 would require election officials to use U.S. Postal Service change-of-address data to help maintain voter rolls; supporters said it would improve accuracy and trust in elections, while one commenter questioned reliance on postal data. The bill passed unanimously 6-0 and was re-referred to Appropriations. The committee then completed the remaining roll calls and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• extraordinary team of analysts, economists, evaluators, and support staff that work for you and the taxpayers
• We have to hold those agencies accountable for the money they are costing our taxpayers.
• We only have one source of income in state government, and that's through our taxpayers.
• And we have to protect those taxpayers. We and that's through our taxpayers.
• And we have to protect those taxpayers.

Summary: The committee heard a final wrap-up presentation from Director So Lee on the Legislative Finance Committee’s budget framework for the upcoming session. He said the state remains in a strong fiscal position, though revenue estimates are lower than earlier projections and available nonrecurring funds have declined by more than $1 billion from the prior session. He emphasized that the recommendation still preserves reserves above 30 percent and supports targeted investments in the committee’s three priorities: increasing per capita earned income through education and workforce development, improving access to high-quality health care and behavioral health, and enhancing quality of life through infrastructure, water, parks, trails, and other community amenities. Director Lee highlighted several major funding areas, including a proposed expansion of the UNM medical education program, water projects, capital outlay for state agency assets, and use of a mix of severance tax bonds, general obligation bonds, and cash for capital needs. He also noted continued pressure from health insurance, liability, and compensation costs, and said the committee would keep using pilot programs for new initiatives. Members broadly praised the staff, interim travel, and budget analysis work. During member comments, Senator Woods focused on school funding stability, liability costs, and fraud or waste in state agencies, arguing the state should take more claims to court to establish precedent and better protect taxpayers. Other members thanked staff and leadership for their work and collaboration. The committee then adopted the catch-up cleanup items and the overall LFC budget framework, with Senator Woods recorded in opposition, and created a technical committee with members from both chambers to resolve any final technical issues before the January session.

Transcript Highlights:

• You would expect them to do right by the taxpayer.
• That's in the best interest of our taxpayers.
• We feel we have been good stewards of taxpayers' money.
• This has to do entirely with the taxpayer, with the Floridian.
• This has to do entirely with the taxpayer, with the Floridian.

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Summary: The Committee on Appropriations took up SJR 2-F, the proposed constitutional amendment on property tax relief, which would reduce assessment growth on non-homestead property, expand homestead exemptions, create a new exemption for new homesteaders, and direct counties, cities, and school districts to use property tax revenues for specified core services. Senator Avila presented the measure as the governor’s plan to provide historic relief and argued that local governments should tighten budgets and prioritize core functions. Senators raised concerns about the lack of fiscal scoring, the breadth and ambiguity of the permitted uses, the effect on special districts and local services, and whether the proposal would shift costs to fees or other taxes. The committee adopted several amendments, including Avila’s amendment clarifying that ad valorem revenues could be used for county and municipal operations and administration and other expenditures not prohibited by law, and Trumbull’s amendment removing school board ad valorem taxes from the proposal. Other amendments failed, including proposals to allow user fees and non-ad valorem assessments, add a sunset, redirect tourism development taxes, narrow the small-business provision, and change the ballot title to reference local service reductions. Grall’s amendment removing the constitutional trust fund requirement was adopted, while the committee also rejected Berman’s title-change amendment and Smith’s sunset and tourism-tax amendments. The committee then returned to the bill as amended for questions, including extended debate over whether the proposal would affect noncitizen residents, the impact on local government finances, and whether local governments would respond with higher fees or special assessments. The meeting ended with the bill still under discussion after the final round of questions, with Avila saying he would continue working with the governor’s office on the language before the next vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• The taxpayers funding this compliance.
• </c><00:42:08.720><c> funds,</c> $52 million annually in taxpayer funds, $52 million annually in taxpayer
• This is a taxpayer engagement.
• </c><00:52:20.000><c> The</c> other recipient of taxpayer money.
• The other recipient of taxpayer money.

Committee: Senate Education

Transcript Highlights:

• the taxpayers voted on?
• I mean, has it been a good deal for taxpayers?
• And saving taxpayers millions of dollars, millions.
• Instead of spending taxpayer dollars on billion, millions.
• This is a waste of taxpayers' dollars.

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• We would actually expect more filings if more taxpayers are aware of the service.
• , once any taxpayer is affected by this 50% or $5 million cap.
• Unlike other tax credit programs, taxpayers pay $1 in and get a dollar out in credits.
• These tax credits would encourage more taxpayers to participate in the program and for existing taxpayers
• It's a win-win for taxpayers and the state budget.

Summary: The subcommittee heard May Revision proposals from the Department of Food and Agriculture, the Government Operations Agency, the Department of Technology, and the Franchise Tax Board, with public comment to come later and all items held open. CDFA presented funding for the animal care program implementing Proposition 12, including a one-time $5.2 million General Fund transfer to the Ag Fund and $2.8 million ongoing, and the LAO recommended approval while noting the Legislature should revisit the funding once litigation and federal preemption questions are resolved. CDFA also proposed ending state oversight of industrial hemp and moving to the federal USDA program by January 1, 2028, with an $8.3 million General Fund transfer to cover startup and transition costs; the LAO supported the transition. Additional CDFA items included $204,000 ongoing and one position to preserve agricultural statistics reporting after USDA reorganization, and trailer bill changes to clarify the department’s 5% indirect cost cap; both drew no objections from Finance or LAO. The Government Operations Agency and Cradle to Career items focused on implementing the new federal Workforce Pell program. Finance described trailer bill language establishing state eligibility processes, with the California Student Aid Commission as the authorizing entity in consultation with the Workforce Development Board, and proposed $1.3 million one-time General Fund for Cradle to Career to build data linkages. The LAO urged caution because federal rules were just finalized and said more information was needed on workload, costs, and whether existing data systems could support the work. Senators raised policy concerns about limiting the program to public institutions and about aligning the proposal with broader workforce and labor goals. The committee also briefly discussed SB 53/Cal Compute, with GovOps saying no appropriation had been provided for its consortium work, and Finance saying the administration was not proposing funding at this time. The Department of Technology presented a $30 million operational backstop for the Middle Mile Broadband Initiative, intended to cover any shortfall if expected revenues from the Golden State Net third-party administrator do not materialize in time. The LAO initially recommended rejection over broad spending authority, then suggested amendments with stronger reporting and legislative review; committee members questioned the revenue assumptions, oversight, and whether the request could recur. CDT also sought $1 million for Poppy, the state’s GenAI digital assistant, to expand secure statewide use; the LAO had no concerns, and members asked about data security, model bias, training restrictions, and possible local-government use. Finally, FTB proposed realigning CalFile resources after the federal Direct File program was discontinued, retaining three ongoing positions and returning the rest of the funding and positions to the General Fund; the LAO said the reduced scope was reasonable, and members discussed keeping the free filing system user-friendly and ready for future federal changes. The committee also heard the administration’s digital pre-written software tax proposal, which would extend sales tax to electronically delivered software and SaaS beginning January 1, 2027, generating an estimated $450 million General Fund in 2026-27 and $900 million ongoing, plus local revenue. The LAO supported modernizing the tax base but recommended broadening the proposal to include more digital products while considering a business-use exemption or reduced rate, and flagged a newly added video game exemption as a revenue downside. Senators generally supported the goal of raising revenue and aligning California with other states, but questioned the local revenue distribution and equity effects, and one senator said they would not support expanding the tax to books, music streaming, and similar consumer products. All items were left open without votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• The court didn't say we have to spend all of this money, um, taxpayer dollars, to come here.
• Well, I mean I think the taxpayers deserve to know where it's coming from.
• Well, I mean I think the taxpayers deserve to know where it's coming from.
• :30.480><c> who's</c> taxpayer dollars, but who's who's taxpayer dollars, but who's who's ultimately<
• </c> Well, I I mean I I think the taxpayers Well, I I mean I I think the taxpayers deserve<00:58:18.480

Bills: SB1

Committee: Senate Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Development

Transcript Highlights:

• Taxpayers. Okay, fine. Well, taxpayers are part of it.
• That's still taxpayer. The other is money from the state, which is still taxpayer. Right.
• Taxpayers. Okay, fine. Well, taxpayers are part of it.
• That's still taxpayer. The other is is money from the state, which is still taxpayer. Right.
• The taxpayers, but the taxpayers are in every region of the state. Right.

Bills: SB524 , SR108 , SR109 , SCR56 , SCR57 , SCR12 , HB227 , HB398 , HB689 , HB897 , HB1029 , HB1107 , HB1217 , HB221 , HCR58 , HB136 , SB162 , SB382 , SCR33 , SCR30 , SB112 , SB194 , SB307 , SB341 , SB346 , SB363 , SB495 , SB503 , SB507 , SB509 , SB513 , SB408 , SB131 , SB145 , SB333 , SB464 , SB466 , SB500 , SB283 , SB338 , SB488 , SB35 , SB65 , SB215 , SB228 , SB246 , SB249 , SB268 , SB269 , SB282 , SB296 , SB312 , SB319 , SB323 , SB369 , SB431 , SB474 , SB484 , SB490 , SB492 , SB501 , HCR14 , HB537 , HB652 , HB653 , HB661 , HB726 , HB756 , HB851 , HB964 , HB966 , HB34 , HB35 , HB48 , HB474 , HB553 , HB758 , HB852 , HB10 , HB16 , HB36 , HB44 , HB46 , HB52 , HB61 , HB78 , HB98 , HB102 , HB124 , HB126 , HB131 , HB135 , HB141 , HB142 , HB164 , HB170 , HB171 , HB179 , HB194 , HB231 , HB245 , HB280 , HB292 , HB294 , HB297 , HB305 , HB336 , HB337 , HB351 , HB436 , HB594 , HB789 , HB956 , HB957 , HB995 , HB1040 , HB50 , HB117 , HB120 , HB122 , HB139 , HB148 , HB149 , HB185 , HB199 , HB247 , HB271 , HB286 , HB301 , HB358 , HB359 , HB384 , HB413 , HB428 , HB450 , HB462 , HB547 , HB613 , HB631 , HB657 , HB669 , HB675 , HB680 , HB691 , HB712 , HB716 , HB720 , HB723 , HB727 , HB728 , HB735 , HB747 , HB759 , HB825 , HB842 , HB845 , HB846 , HB903 , HB904 , HB907 , HB923 , HB929 , HB941 , HB962 , HB965 , HB1036 , HB287 , HB370 , HB515 , HB521 , HB570 , HB1200 , HB29 , HB39 , HB58 , HB67 , HB73 , HB76 , HB77 , HB82 , HB112 , HB121 , HB125 , HB132 , HB134 , HB151 , HB154 , HB155 , HB161 , HB166 , HB187 , HB191 , HB207 , HB211 , HB224 , HB238 , HB241 , HB242 , HB250 , HB260 , HB265 , HB275 , HB300 , HB320 , HB338 , HB339 , HB349 , HB379 , HB399 , HB427 , HB463 , HB464 , HB468 , HB545 , HB550 , HB551 , HB565 , HB588 , HB639 , HB725 , HB782 , HB805 , HB808 , HB834 , HB847 , HB853 , HB858 , HB861 , HB883 , HB916 , HB937 , HB977 , HB1012 , HB1027 , HB1044 , HB1054 , HB1071 , HB1091 , HB1117 , HB119 , HB129 , HB677 , HB850 , SB68 , SB149

Transcript Highlights:

• responsible use of taxpayer dollars.
• </c><00:19:06.680><c> when</c> levied from our taxpayers when levied from our taxpayers when communities
• ><c> so</c><00:20:38.600><c> districts</c> taxpayers decision making so districts taxpayers decision
• </c> the responsible use of taxpayer dollars. the responsible use of taxpayer dollars.
• And when a affordability for taxpayers.

Committee: Senate Labor

Transcript Highlights:

• So it's only about 60 bucks. >> So Florida, Florida taxpayers will.
• One study port, the criminal you lillian's that are costing tax taxpayer dollars.
• They're hardworking, their homeowners, their taxpayers, and they live here.
• It's a bad deal for taxpayers.
• Burdening taxpayers with expensive appeals and legal challenges.

Transcript Highlights:

• In that presentation, we identified waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars as a top issue for the
• about our comprehensive plan to hold government accountable, to stop the disregard for Minnesota taxpayers
• about our comprehensive plan to hold government accountable, to stop the disregard for Minnesota taxpayers
• </c> responsible protections for taxpayer responsible protections for taxpayer money<00:26:33.320><c>
• Stop the fraud before another scandal steals even more taxpayer money for fraudulent purposes.

Transcript Highlights:

• This essentially allows taxpayers to opt in to the ability to receive communications and notices about
• Also, being able to have that taxpayer accountability, there are some elements in this bill on the last
• , anything that helps taxpayers be able to make their bill, make their obligations just like we do as
• We're going to create a mechanism when we silo this out that those taxpayers that see the increase in
• I have to say, I've said this often about our patient, who is the taxpayers: we have to stop the bleed

Committee: House Special Committee on Property Tax Reform

Transcript Highlights:

• I just, I'm always concerned when taxpayers are on the whole...
• I just, I'm always concerned when taxpayers are on the whole. Senator Smith: Is there any chance?
• I'm always concerned when taxpayers are on the hook for something potentially.
• Is this something that is going to be funded by taxpayers?
• I fear that this is going to really be pushed on taxpayers.

Summary: The Committee on Environment and Natural Resources met with a quorum present and took up several environmental bills and one confirmation. First, the committee considered SB 1422 on surface waters, which was amended with a strike-all focused on coral reef protection and designation of coral reefs as critical natural infrastructure. Senator Garcia described the amendment as a way to support restoration, disaster resilience, and access to federal funding; Audubon Florida waived in support. The committee adopted the amendment and then reported CS for SB 1422 favorably. The committee next considered SPB 7034, a DEP rule ratification concerning the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee River minimum flows and levels and recovery strategy. Senator Rodriguez explained the rule would replace prior MFLs and allow longer permits, while opponents from the Florida Springs Council and local river advocates argued the plan relies too heavily on one future wastewater reuse project, delays restoration, and lacks a clear funding source. DEP and JEA waived in support. After debate, the committee approved the motion to submit the proposal as a committee bill; the measure was favorably reported, with Senator Smith voting no. The committee then heard SB 1510 on DEP-related matters, as amended. The strike-all addressed Outstanding Florida Springs B-MAP mediation plans, septic system upgrades where sewer is unavailable, rural cost-share eligibility, notice to property owners, rulemaking procedures, and land acquisition governance, while removing biosolids and fee provisions. Florida Springs Council opposed the 60-day delay for B-MAP effectiveness, saying it could slow restoration and allow more conventional septic systems to be installed before stricter requirements take effect. DEP and others supported the bill. The committee reported CS for SB 1510 favorably. It also heard SB 1196 on waste facilities, which would prohibit new ash-producing incinerators and waste-to-energy facilities within two miles of certain federally authorized water impoundment areas, with an amendment narrowing the bill to Miami-Dade and Broward County. Supporters, including the City of Miramar, said it would protect water resources and Everglades restoration; opponents from the Florida Waste-to-Energy Coalition warned it would limit local solid waste options and could force more landfilling. The committee adopted the amendment and reported CS for SB 1196 favorably. Finally, the committee considered SB 912 on battery collection and recovery, establishing a battery stewardship program and requiring producers and retailers to join a stewardship organization by 2028. Supporters from the battery industry and recycling sector said the bill would reduce fires and keep batteries out of the waste stream. The committee adopted the amendment and reported CS for SB 912 favorably. The committee also recommended confirmation of Gary Jennings to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• being passed on to residential taxpayers.
• And so we've seen this shift in the tax burden from one property taxpayer to another.
• And so we've seen this shift in the tax burden from one property taxpayer to another.
• And so for this, it treats this particular taxpayer class separate from everybody else.
• Thank you, Whip Cruz. ...particular taxpayer class separate from everybody else.

Summary: The caucus meeting began with introductions from pages and interns, followed by a procedural reminder from Rhonda about caucus consent and third-read consent calendars. She explained that bills coming out of rules can be placed on consent if they are not amended, and that pulling a bill from consent means members should be prepared to speak to it on the floor. The meeting then moved through a long Minority Caucus calendar of bills, with staff giving brief descriptions and members frequently noting bills for no further comment, pulling several from consent, or stating opposition. The bills discussed covered a wide range of topics, including appropriations and federal monies (HB 2148), a Buffalo Soldiers memorial (HB 2062), school library funding restrictions (HB 2008), prayer at public school governing body meetings (HB 2110), school safety administration (HB 2142), parental rights and social transitioning notifications (HB 2249), insurer assessments (HB 2091), agricultural property classification and inspection rules (HB 2104 and HB 2105), firefighters’ workers’ compensation status (HB 2138), truth-in-taxation bond notices (HB 2289), tax filing penalties (HB 2016), engineer and architect reciprocity (HB 2122), felony murder involving an unborn child (HB 2043), body concealment and related felony classifications (HB 2044), domestic violence order-of-protection service rules (HB 2048), mandatory reporting for partial-birth abortions (HB 2074), unlawful flight sentencing enhancements (HB 2108), weapons trafficking penalties (HB 2131), fentanyl sentencing thresholds (HB 2132), drive-by shooting definitions and forfeiture (HB 2045), probation review notices for sex offender hearings (HB 2046), venue changes in superior court when judicial employees are parties (HB 2126), and child support for pre-born children (HB 2144). Water-related bills included snowpack augmentation funding (HB 2024), WIFA grant disclosures (HB 2029), removing water conservation education as an eligible use (HB 2030), stormwater recharge mapping with an appropriation (HB 253), cesspool remediation assistance (HB 2096), groundwater pumping limits in INAs (HB 2097), Colorado River litigation funding (HB 2116), and natural resource board changes and education funding (HB 2117). Election-related measures included moving the primary date and adjusting cure periods and observer rules (HB 2022), and a proposed constitutional amendment on citizenship, ID, foreign contributions, early voting, and mail voting (HCR 2001). The committee also heard two memorials urging federal terrorist designations for the Muslim Brotherhood and CARE (HCM 2001 and HCM 2002). Members and staff offered substantive objections to many bills, often arguing they were anti-student, anti-abortion, overly punitive, unfunded mandates, or unfair tax policy. Several bills were pulled from consent for further discussion, including HB 2008, HB 2110, HB 2142, HB 2249, HB 2043, HB 2074, HB 2108, and HB 2144. Supportive remarks were also made for some measures, such as the cesspool remediation bill, which was noted as having unanimous support, while other bills were flagged for stakeholder meetings or future amendments. The meeting ended with announcements recognizing members’ birthdays and noting Muslim Day at the Capitol, followed by adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• That the taxpayers of the entire city.
• Who are the taxpayers paying for?
• Who are the taxpayers who's in the room. Who are the taxpayers paying<04:18:10.000><c> for?
• <04:18:17.520><c> dollars,</c> taxpayer dollars, taxpayer dollars, they<04:18:19.840><c> are</c><04:18
• ><c> of</c><04:19:34.560><c> being</c> Minnesota taxpayers are tired of being Minnesota taxpayers are