Transcript Highlights:

• </c> the second part of your presentation. the second part of your presentation.
• Um, and if that was going to hold it back, I was perfectly happy to scrap that part.
• </c> that wasn't part of the original bill. that wasn't part of the original bill.
• And everything that remains that part.
• There's a lot of moving parts absorb.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• to these people living in recovery, which is part of their success in the path for recovery.
• to these people living in recovery, which is part of their success in the path for recovery.
• to these people living in recovery, which is part of their success in the path for recovery.
• to these people living in recovery, which is part of their success in the path for recovery.
• group right now, part of NH4 specifically?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• if that's explanation of those parts if that's explanation of those parts if that's that's yes sir and
• of the state when they need other parts of the state when they need other parts of the state when they
• of Bible study cuz I wanted to be a part of Bible study cuz I wanted to be a part of that that that
• of it so let and every smile that's part of it so let and every smile that's part of it so let me see
• of the bills that were part of the bills that were part of the governor's uh task force uh on police

Keywords: sessions, 2025-R, 1, 219

Transcript Highlights:

• She said these factors have been part of Section 2 litigation since the 1980s.
• And these factors have been a part of Section 2 litigation since the 1980s.
• And these factors have been a part of Section 2 litigation since the 1980s.
• state and local elections, of course, elections are run at the state and local level for the most part
• So maybe I'll take the last part of your question; that's the easiest.

Summary: The House State Government & Tribal Relations Committee held a virtual work session focused first on federal actions affecting elections. A representative from NCSL reviewed recent U.S. Supreme Court and pending cases, including a redistricting/Voting Rights Act case and a case on whether mailed ballots received after Election Day can be counted. She also discussed a Trump executive order directing USPS to draft mail-ballot rules, the federal SAVE system’s expanded use for voter list maintenance, DOJ requests for unredacted voter rolls, and reduced federal election-security support. Committee members asked about proof of citizenship requirements, whether DOJ requests are compulsory, and how federal election funding and grants may be changing. The Attorney General’s Office then described Washington’s litigation challenging two election-related executive orders and DOJ’s lawsuit seeking unredacted voter registration lists. State lawyers said courts have already enjoined parts of the executive orders, including documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements and voting-system changes, and have upheld Washington’s ballot-receipt deadlines so far. They said DOJ’s voter-roll demands have been rejected by multiple courts and that Washington’s position is that state law limits disclosure of sensitive voter data. Members asked about the legal basis for DOJ’s requests, the risk of immigration-enforcement use, and whether attestation on registration forms counts as proof of citizenship; the office said it does under state law and that no evidence of mass voter-fraud problems in Washington has been shown. Deputy Attorney General Todd Bowers then gave a broader overview of the Attorney General’s federal litigation, saying Washington has filed 61 cases since January 2025, often with other states, and has had notable success obtaining preliminary injunctions and favorable summary judgments. He highlighted cases involving election rules, environmental and energy disputes, public health funding, student loans, housing, and data privacy, and said many challenges involve executive-branch conditions added to congressionally appropriated funds. He also described a growing number of federal audits and inquiries directed at state agencies. Finally, Office of Equity Director Megan Matthews discussed how federal actions are affecting state and local equity work, community organizations, and public confidence. She said the office is coordinating more closely with the Attorney General, governor’s office, other agencies, and local governments through the immigration subcabinet, while also working on data privacy, Keep Washington Working compliance, and community outreach. Committee members asked about the office’s human-trafficking work and how it is encouraging agency compliance; Matthews said the focus is on clearer guidance, technical support, and consistent expectations across agencies. The committee adjourned after the presentations and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• That was a value statement on the part of our district.
• And that would include living wages as part of the cost.
• And obviously, this is a big part of the foundation budget, right?
• And obviously, this is a big part of the foundation budget, right?
• ESPs are an important part of the education community.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Education held a public hearing on a large slate of bills, with most testimony focused on two main topics: improving access to augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) for students with disabilities, and raising educator pay statewide. On the AAC bills (House 514/Senate 418), parents, advocates, and attorneys described how AAC devices and communication books help nonverbal or minimally verbal children communicate, participate in class, and reduce frustration and behavioral issues. Testimony emphasized that while districts are generally required to provide devices, many teachers and school staff lack training to use them effectively; the bill would direct DESE to update licensure and training requirements so newly licensed teachers are prepared to support AAC users. Committee members asked about current teacher-prep practices, implementation, and whether DESE could act without legislation, and witnesses said the proposal was intended as a long-term solution and had previously received some support and compromise language. The committee also heard extensive testimony on House 733/Senate 370, which would set a statewide minimum salary of $70,000 for teachers and $55,000 for education support professionals (ESPs/paras), with inflation adjustments and a phase-in structure that would shift costs over time from the state to municipalities. Supporters, including the bill sponsor, MTA leaders, and school employees from several districts, argued that current pay is not a living wage, contributes to staffing shortages and turnover, and forces many educators to work multiple jobs or rely on public assistance. They said the bill would help recruit and retain staff and better reflect the importance of the work. Committee members raised questions about how the state would fund the mandate, how it would interact with Chapter 70 school aid and local budgets, whether other states have similar mechanisms, and whether the proposal could create disincentives for districts already paying above the floor. Witnesses pointed to the Student Opportunity Act, the Fair Share Amendment, and the need for a broader school funding formula review as possible parts of the solution. The committee also briefly heard and discussed Senate Bill 435/House Bill 736, which would require de-escalation training for school bus operators, with the training paid for by employers. The sponsor and a parent advocate said the bill was prompted by a school bus incident involving a child with cerebral palsy and epilepsy and would improve safety and reduce reliance on law enforcement. Members asked whether the bill should also cover bus monitors and other transportation staff, and whether private contractors and public operators currently provide similar training. At the end of the hearing, the chairs closed testimony on the full list of bills and adjourned the hearing without taking any votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, I like that part.
• Yeah, I like that part.
• Since they’re not affected by it, they shouldn’t be a part of that. Yeah.
• That's part of the reason why this was developed this way.
• This happened in the northeast part of the state.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So it’s not enclosed; it’s not part of this bill.
• So on this part of your bill, I like it. I haven’t seen the other part, but I like this part.
• Because if they’re using electric part of the time and gas part of the time, can you tell me how that
• I still would like to look at an amendment and concept to fix the language in the first part.
• We have some coordination with the local municipality and they pay for part of it or something?

Summary: The Senate Committee on Revenue and Fiscal Affairs met on May 11, 2026, approved the April 27 minutes, and then took up several House bills. HB 618, by Rep. McMakin, would update Louisiana Economic Development fees and filing charges by indexing them to inflation and allowing some discretion to waive or reduce fees for small businesses; it was reported favorable. HB 732, by Rep. Owen, drew extensive discussion because it combined two issues: temporary OMV relief for a hospice-related ID problem and a suspension of the new hybrid vehicle road usage fee. Members and the OMV commissioner raised constitutional and drafting concerns about waiving or eliminating obligations, and the committee discussed how newer vehicle classifications blur the line between electric, hybrid, and gas-powered vehicles. The committee ultimately reported HB 732 favorable, with the understanding that amendments and further work would be needed before floor action. The committee also reported favorable on HB 217 and HB 214 by Rep. Henry, which would authorize local governments to grant property tax exemptions for the rehabilitation of blighted property and place the related constitutional amendment before voters. Testimony emphasized that the measure is permissive for local governments, applies only after a property is formally blighted and rehabilitated, and is intended to encourage redevelopment while preserving some tax revenue. Members discussed the exemption level, duration, and the need for clearer definitions of blight, but no objections were raised. HB 593, also by Rep. Henry, would raise the maximum service fee for OMV public tag agent offices statewide; the commissioner explained that many offices are locally operated and that the increase would help cover costs, and the bill was reported favorable. Later, HB 514 and HB 961, by Rep. Foreman, were reported favorable. HB 514 would allow local governments, by referendum, to provide additional property tax relief for seniors who meet income and freeze requirements, with phased age-based eligibility steps; HB 961 would extend a similar concept to certain homesteads held in trust. Members discussed the optional local nature of the program and the need to avoid overly broad rules. HB 908, by Rep. Mina, would increase certain Secretary of State business services fees to support operations and system upgrades; agency officials said the fees had not been comprehensively adjusted since 2013 and remained below regional averages, and the bill was reported favorable. The committee then heard an informational update on the capital outlay bill from the Division of Administration, including the use of bundled projects for universities and DOTD, the status of P1/P2/P5 funding, and available cash capacity. Finally, HB 1010, by Rep. Deshotel, was reported favorable after brief discussion; it would require assessors to report property tax collections to the Louisiana Tax Commission for centralized public reporting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is that part of a rate study somewhere, or what? No, sir.
• So that was part of their state employees at the HCCs, of course.
• So a part of putting any kind of...
• Because part of the value... ...then we think it'll be worth it, right?
• I understand that is part of what has happened.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Meanwhile, when governments regulate interchange fees, it causes banks and other parts of the payment
• So adoption isn’t as rapid as what we’re seeing in other parts of the world.
• They do not know what's a part of that transaction.
• So a little bit of frustration on my part, listening to all this.
• They're part of the economic infrastructure that makes modern transactions work.

Keywords: 1212, all

Summary: The Special Legislative Commission on the Future of Payments and Sales Transactions by Credit Card and the Impacts for Small Business held a public hearing focused on credit card interchange fees, cashless transactions, chargebacks, fraud, and possible reforms affecting small businesses in Massachusetts. Chair Paul Feeney opened the meeting, outlined the commission’s charge, and noted that the hearing would hear from small business owners, industry representatives, and others on the effects of payment trends and proposed policy changes. Representative Sean Garballey testified first, arguing that universal card acceptance and the current interchange system are important to Massachusetts tourism and should not be disrupted ahead of a busy summer season. A large portion of the hearing featured independent restaurant owners and advocates, who said processing fees are especially burdensome because restaurants operate on very thin margins and are charged fees on sales tax and tips that are not retained as revenue. Testifiers including Jen Ziskin, Kristen Canty, Nancy Cushman, and Kerry Colzer described rising operating costs and gave examples of annual or monthly fee totals, urging relief from fees on tax and gratuity amounts. Ryan Lotz also asked for chargeback reforms, including refunding chargeback fees when merchants prevail, requiring consumers to contact businesses before disputing charges, proportional fees, and safeguards against repeat abuse. Several witnesses, including Dan Swanson, argued that states have authority to regulate aspects of the payment system and cited the Illinois litigation and federal court rulings as support for state action. Opposing testimony came from credit unions, banks, payment industry representatives, and policy groups, who warned that changing interchange rules could create compliance burdens, reduce rewards, raise account fees, and shift costs elsewhere. Witnesses such as Alex Vereen, Brad Popolado, Keely McEwen, David Montero, Hunter Hamburlin, and Luke Bondar emphasized fraud prevention, network security, consumer protections, and the need for a stable, uniform payment system. Some suggested alternatives such as vendor compensation, surcharging, instant payments, or QR pay code standards, while others argued that sales tax and tip amounts cannot easily be separated within current card-network architecture. The chairs said the commission is still exploring options, discussed possible state-level solutions, and announced plans for one more public hearing before moving toward recommendations and a report. The commission then voted to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• For the first part, what do they need to know before taking the job?
• Thank you for mentioning that letters training is part one, and part two is the real kicker.
• I just want people to know that's part of what we funded to kind of.
• As the need for, as part of, a condition.
• To many legislators, that we're not part of the general PED milieu.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's the first part. Second part is when you do research.
• But that's the four areas, four parts of the bill.
• That's the first part. Second part is when you do research.
• But that's the four areas, four parts of the bill.
• We all know there's a lot of moving parts on this.

Bills: HB398, HB906, HB1201, SB41, SB47, SB106, SB210, SB218, SB220, SB248, SB289, SB397

Keywords: travel expenses, reimbursement, state officials, US General Services Administration, disaster management, nominating petitions, unaffiliated voters, party primaries, political participation, elections, public meeting minutes, transparency, government accountability, publication deadlines, open meetings, boards and commissions, public records, contact information, email addresses, phone numbers

Transcript Highlights:

• So the first lifting of part of our funding was in February.
• So the first lifting of a part of our funding was in February.
• But that was never, you know, part of this application.
• So, in the first part, what are the tribes doing well?
• So I think it's kind of multiple pieces and parts.

Summary: The Rural Health Transformation Committee met to receive an overview from Department of Health and Welfare Director Juliet Sharon on Idaho’s Rural Health Transformation Program application and the federal rules governing the five-year funding. Sharon explained the program was created by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, that Idaho’s award is about $186 million annually in year one, and that the state must obligate the funds by October 30 or risk losing them. She reviewed the application timeline, the federal scoring process, reporting and audit requirements, and the state’s plan to hire a 12-person limited-term team to manage solicitations, monitoring, and compliance. Committee members asked about scope-of-practice issues for dental hygienists and physician assistants, the risk of losing or gaining funds, survey methodology, telehealth, and how the state will use the money for workforce, technology, behavioral health, infrastructure, and tribal set-asides. Sharon said the department would continue working with the legislature on scope-of-practice policy, provide more detail on survey data and funding caps, and set up a shared information space with LSO for committee access. Sharon also walked through the five main initiative areas in Idaho’s plan: technology and access, innovative models, workforce, chronic disease and behavioral health, and rural infrastructure/partnerships. She emphasized that allowable uses include telehealth and EHR modernization, cybersecurity, EMS support, workforce recruitment and retention incentives, evidence-based behavioral health and chronic disease programs, renovations and mobile units, and a 3.5% tribal set-aside. She said the department is still refining what is allowable with CMS and that the committee will receive monthly summaries, procurement information, and performance reports. Members raised concerns about the survey’s heavy use of “other” responses, the amount of money going to administration, and whether telehealth spending is the best use of funds. Chris Jones of Catalyst Policy Group then offered outside perspective on rural health strategy and the federal program. He praised Idaho’s application but urged the committee to think in terms of integrated, patient-centered systems rather than isolated projects. He highlighted examples from other states involving community health workers, telehealth hubs, remote monitoring, value-based care networks, rural training pipelines, and partnerships among hospitals, FQHCs, and tribal providers. He cautioned against focusing on social determinants of health funding, encouraged use of technology to reduce labor burden and improve sustainability, and emphasized that training providers in rural areas tends to keep them there. No votes were taken. The committee agreed to tentatively meet again on May 28 during CMS’s planned Idaho visit, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the first lifting of part of our funding was in February.
• So the first lifting of a part of our funding was in February.
• But that was never, you know, part of this application.
• So in the first part, what are the tribes doing well?
• So I think it's kind of multiple pieces and parts.

Keywords: 989, all

Summary: The Rural Health Transformation Committee met to receive an overview from Department of Health and Welfare Director Juliet Sharon on Idaho’s Rural Health Transformation Program, created under the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Sharon explained the $50 billion federal program, Idaho’s application timeline, the state’s ranking and award amount, and the five broad initiative areas in the approved plan: technology and access, innovative care models, workforce development, chronic disease and behavioral health, and rural infrastructure/partnerships. She emphasized that the funding is tightly overseen by CMS, with required reporting, compliance checks, sustainability plans, and the risk of losing funds if Idaho does not obligate money or meet milestones on time. She also outlined the state’s plan to hire a 12-person temporary team and to use a mix of RFPs and competitive subgrants, with monthly reporting to the committee and a shared information space to track solicitations, rubrics, and awards. Committee members questioned several parts of the plan, especially scope-of-practice issues tied to the application, the use of telehealth funding, workforce retention, and the survey process used to shape the application. Representative Tanner asked whether the state could continue pursuing scope changes for dental hygienists and physician assistants and whether legislative action could affect funding outcomes; Sharon said the state would continue to evaluate those policies, but that compliance, timely spending, and performance would be the main factors affecting funding. Representative Healy raised concerns about the survey’s heavy use of “other” responses and about telehealth spending, arguing some telehealth uses may not be practical for specialty care. Representative Manwaring requested a shared drive for real-time data and asked for raw survey results and dollar-based funding caps. Sharon agreed to provide follow-up information, including survey data and additional details on funding limits. Chris Jones of Catalyst Policy Group then presented broader policy observations and examples from other states. He praised Idaho’s application, urged the committee to keep the focus on patient-centered rural access, and highlighted ideas such as community health workers, remote patient monitoring, rural training pipelines, value-based care networks, and telehealth models that reduce staffing needs and improve sustainability. He also cautioned against relying on social determinants of health funding, noted the importance of rural training and partnerships, and praised Idaho’s 3.5% tribal set-aside. The committee ended by agreeing to set up a shared information hub with LSO, to expect follow-up materials and possible solicitation drafts soon, and to tentatively plan its next meeting around CMS’s Idaho visit on May 28.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's not in that part of the code.
• That's the key part of the bill.
• Is this part of something else?
• Is this part of something else?
• One is 4E, and I'll just, I'm going to read parts of it.

Summary: The committee first approved a motion to send an IRS-related item to print, then took up House Bill 822, which would require covered entities such as schools, child care providers, and medical or behavioral health providers to notify parents when a minor requests help with a social transition and would restrict assisting a child’s transition without parental consent. Representative Skaug, the sponsor, said the bill is intended to protect parents’ rights and ensure they are not kept in the dark about serious matters involving their children. Committee members questioned the bill’s scope, including the use of terms like “request,” “facilitate,” and “aid and abet,” the applicability of mandamus to private entities, and the potential for a $100,000 civil penalty; Skaug said penalties would be proportional and that the bill was aimed at social transition, not ordinary behavior or medical treatment. Public testimony was sharply divided. Supporters, including representatives of Idaho Family Policy Center, a parent, a father, and Alliance Defending Freedom, argued the bill would restore parental authority, stop schools and providers from concealing a child’s gender-related concerns, and close loopholes in existing school policies. Opponents, including physicians, a nurse, a parent, Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, and a trans constituent, said the bill was vague, would chill professional judgment, could endanger vulnerable youth, and might force disclosure in situations where a child is not safe at home or is not ready to involve parents. Several opponents also warned the bill could worsen Idaho’s provider shortages and create legal and ethical conflicts for educators and clinicians. After sponsor closing remarks, senators debated the measure. Supporters emphasized parental rights and the need for notification, while opponents argued the bill lacked clear definitions and safety exceptions. The committee then voted on the motion to send House Bill 822 to the floor with a due pass recommendation; the motion carried, and the bill was advanced to the Senate floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• Just showcases, or well, it showcases the things that were a part of the TCJA that were in place from
• Okay, just part. Hello, Robin. Good afternoon.
• That's a part of your cost for the service.
• So those are basically a part of all of the services.
• And for the most part, a large number of... To keep doing this.

Summary: The Government Finance Committee met with new leadership and approved the December 11 minutes. The committee first received an update from the Office of Management and Budget on the state general fund and major special funds. OMB reported revenues were tracking very close to forecast, with an estimated ending general fund balance of about $397 million, higher than previously expected. Staff also reviewed balances in the budget stabilization fund, legacy fund, foundation aid stabilization fund, social services fund, and strategic investment and improvements fund, along with oil tax collections and the current revenue picture. Legislative Council staff then summarized the special session budget changes and noted the updated beginning balance increased the projected ending balance for the next biennium. The Tax Department presented taxable sales and purchases data by county and industry, showing overall sales tax activity remained strong, with retail trade the largest sector and several counties posting notable gains. Commissioner Kraschis then reviewed federal tax changes under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and estimated their impact on North Dakota income tax collections, explaining that the figures were compared to the 2025 baseline and would be incorporated into future forecasts. Members asked about the overtime and tip exclusions, the senior standard deduction, and the primary residence property tax credit application count, which was running ahead of last year at more than 154,000 applications. The committee also heard from the Department of Transportation on fee schedules, with members focusing on driver’s license fees and the fact that current fees cover only about half of program costs, meaning the highway fund subsidizes the remainder. DOT also reported on specialty plate activity, including nearly 3,900 blackout plates issued, and noted increased state fleet usage. The Information Technology Department explained its internal service fund rate-setting process and discussed possible billing simplification, including annual billing and improved invoice detail. OMB also provided data on leased office space in the Bismarck-Mandan area and state workforce counts, and Legislative Council updated the committee on legislative branch space planning. Finally, subcommittee reports noted continued work on fixed-route transit funding and regional jail capacity, including Burleigh-Morton’s new DOCR housing wing and ongoing overcrowding in state correctional facilities. No formal votes beyond the minutes approval were taken, and the meeting adjourned with the next meeting set for June 25.

Transcript Highlights:

• No major industrial project will proceed in any part of the state without major vetting.
• In any part of the state... Part of the state without major vetting. In any part of the state?
• Because there are parts of the state that don't require building permits at all.
• Louis County with the 80-plus little municipalities, you know, you have a part-time engineer or part-time
• We need to work on that part of it.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And I'm just... in any part of the state... In any part of the state?
• Because there are parts of the state that don't require building permits at all.
• Louis County with the 80-plus little municipalities, you know, you have a part-time engineer, a part-time
• We need to work on that part of it.
• I just want to say in two parts. One, Well, I appreciate it, sir.

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 2330 in executive session. A committee substitute narrowed the bill’s annexation-related scope to St. Charles and Jefferson counties and removed water and sewer language because those services are provided by private entities in those counties. The committee adopted the substitute, but the final do-pass motion failed on a 6-8 vote after the chair changed his vote to no. The committee then considered House Bill 1817, which drew discussion about reporting public assistance information in a generalized way rather than identifying individual households. An amendment clarifying that the report would use averages and not specific addresses was adopted, rolled into a committee substitute, and the substitute was then passed on an 11-1 vote with one present. Members raised concerns about SNAP, TANF, and WIC-related provisions and about consistency in the bill’s population threshold, but the bill advanced. Public hearing testimony followed on House Bill 2291, a bill creating deadlines for local governments to act on building permit applications. Supporters, including the sponsor and industry advocates, said permit delays raise costs, slow housing and economic development, and argued the bill would not change zoning or inspections. Opponents, including the Missouri Municipal League, warned the bill’s language could be read to affect zoning and that a single 30-day deadline may not fit projects of different sizes or allow enough time for public input and safety review. No vote was taken on the bill. The committee also heard House Bill 2336, a state property disposal bill. The sponsor said a substitute would be needed because additional properties and corrected legal descriptions had been identified, and the Office of Administration confirmed support and explained that five properties, including former DESE schools and a Springfield regional office, would be added. Finally, House Bill 2403, the “Rue Wells Act,” was heard to create an independent appeal board for student transfer eligibility decisions by activities associations. Supporters described the case as unfair and costly to challenge in court, while others questioned whether a new board would add bureaucracy or bias. Testimony from school administrators said most appeals are already resolved within the existing process, but they were open to a narrowly tailored appeals mechanism with clear recusal rules and independence.

Transcript Highlights:

• Speaker, is to point out that clearly a part of this appropriation is unconstitutional.
• from the constitutional part.
• Part from the constitutional part. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, gentlemen.
• I was part of that debate. You were part of that debate. Yes.
• about a part of the law, which I understand the sunset clause is currently, correct?

Summary: The Missouri House opened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and approval of the House Journal by a 113-0 roll call vote. Members then offered several points of personal privilege recognizing military history, student heroes who responded to a medical emergency at South Tech High School, Black History Month remarks on Maya Angelou, student athletic achievements, and a moment of silence for former Fire Chief Henry Williams. The House also welcomed special guests, including a student shadowing a member and former Rep. Ben Baker in his role with USDA Rural Development. The chamber then took up several bills. House Committee Substitute for House Bill 2014, the supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal year 2026, was debated at length over constitutional concerns about MODOT funding and the need for disaster relief, Medicaid, and mental health appropriations; it passed 130-11. House Bill 2189, allowing five-year vehicle registrations and removing the even-odd model-year restriction, passed 143-0 after members discussed county clerks, tax payment verification, and the bill’s lack of fiscal impact. House Committee Substitute for House Bill 1790, which changes ballot language requirements including Hancock Amendment-related wording and levy examples, passed 114-24. House Committee Substitute for House Bill 2178, dealing with property tax assessment limits and appeal procedures, drew the most extended debate. Supporters said it would cap annual increases and help taxpayers, while opponents argued a floor amendment was not vetted, could shift burdens to schools and fire districts, and might harm local revenues; it passed 86-53. House Bill 1844, the athletic trainer compact, passed 117-27 with support framed around workforce mobility and rural health access. The House also perfected House Committee Substitute for House Bill 1663, which removes the sunset from Missouri’s Save Women’s Sports Act; debate centered on fairness in women’s athletics versus concerns about discrimination, local control, and the lack of a broader policy review, and the chamber adopted the substitute and ordered it perfected and printed. The session ended with announcements, including a blue alert and the death of a Christian County deputy, committee meeting notices, and adjournment until February 24, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• price or rent amount that does not exceed 30% of the income, and the affordable housing development is part
• I just missed that part.
• But the other part of that equity goes back into the community for things like you. ...if that equity
• So if that was set up to provide safeguards, what is it that they might be losing by not being a part
• And as a part of that, there was a lot of learning that happened.

Bills: HB2304, SGA9280, SGA9281

Keywords: condominium, housing, warranty, property rights, construction, 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I remember in college, I actually was a part of a search. I went to SBU and Bolivar.
• Foster care is part of my background, so my heart beats for foster kids always.
• That was pretty powerful, and that was a lot of work on your part.
• That was pretty powerful, and that was a lot of work on your part.
• And so this is just, we understand the safety part, but I've never gotten to the part like how we actually

Summary: The Committee on Children and Families met in executive session first and approved two measures by roll call vote. House Committee Substitute for House Bill 2610, relating to the Missouri State Legal Expense Fund, was amended to cap the fund for that bill at $1 million and then voted do pass by a 17-0 vote. The committee also adopted a substitute combining House Bills 1839, 29, 21, and 3015, described as age verification legislation, and voted the combined House Committee Substitute do pass by a 17-0 vote. The committee then held a lengthy public hearing on House Bill 1840, which would create a statewide Purple Alert system for missing persons with developmental disabilities. Representative Sherry Gallick and numerous supporters testified that the bill would fill a gap between Amber and Silver Alerts and help law enforcement and the public respond faster when vulnerable individuals wander or go missing. Family members, advocates, service providers, and first responders described personal tragedies involving autistic children and adults, emphasized the risks of water, traffic, exposure, and exploitation, and said specialized training for responders was important. No one testified in opposition. After a brief recess, the committee heard House Bill 2170, which would update Missouri child passenger restraint laws to require rear-facing seats for children under age three and tighten other child restraint requirements. The sponsor and supporters from MoDOT, pediatric, medical, and emergency physician groups said the bill would codify best practices and improve child safety, while committee members raised questions about enforcement, exceptions for larger children, and the cost of fines and car seats. The hearing ended with no opposition testimony and no final vote taken on HB 1840 or HB 2170 during the transcript.