Transcript Highlights:

• The fiscal impact is estimated to have no state cost and has no opposition.
• The committee analysis highlights there is no fiscal cost to the state.
• As the analysis points out, the costs for the state are minor and absorbable.
• As the analysis notes, the bill has minor and observable costs.
• Just want to add to the very thorough analysis that the impact to the state would actually begin in 2028

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on May 6, 2026, with a quorum present and began by approving a large consent calendar of bills on two unanimous-support motions. The committee then heard a series of individual bills, with authors and sponsors generally describing low or absorbable state costs and asking for aye votes. Topics included AI/digital safety education for students (AB 1792), hepatitis C treatment access (AB 1843), rent-now-pay-later consumer protections (AB 2350), retirement information for community college faculty (AB 2417), cannabis regulation changes including tribal commerce, drive-through sales, and beverage labeling (AB 2506, AB 2697, AB 2532), emergency equipment training for law enforcement volunteers (AB 1913), cannery law modernization (AB 2706), child care planning in local governments (AB 1914), EV charger permitting fees (AB 1820), election-record notice requirements (AB 1664), nursing home discharge notices (AB 2135), a San Diego energization-delay pilot (AB 2518), mental health training for school coaches (AB 1665), and education governance and oversight changes (AB 2117). Several bills were described as committee or sponsor measures with technical or clarifying changes, including AB 2780, AB 2615, AB 2121, and AB 2771. Testimony was largely supportive, often from sponsor groups, industry representatives, labor, or advocacy organizations. Notable support included TechNet for AB 1792, the California State Sheriffs’ Association for AB 1913, California Dairies and food manufacturers for AB 2706, the Low Income Investment Fund for AB 1914, EV and environmental groups for AB 1820, the Attorney General’s Office for AB 1664, long-term care ombudsman advocates for AB 2135, and the California State Association of Psychiatrists for the cannabis and mental-health-related bills. Some bills drew limited opposition or “opposed unless amended” positions, including AB 2350, AB 1820, and AB 2506, while AB 2697 and AB 2532 were presented as efforts to support the legal cannabis market and consumer safety. The committee also heard a presentation-only item, AB 2541, creating a lowrider specialty license plate, which drew enthusiastic bipartisan comments and co-author requests from members. Most bills were reported out with due pass recommendations, many on roll call and several with specific members not voting or voting no. AB 1664 was reported out as due pass as amended and placed on call before later being moved out on a B roll call. AB 2350 and AB 1914 were also later reported out from call on B roll calls, with AB 1914 noted as passing despite some Republican no votes. The suspense calendar was then deemed approved without individual action, and the meeting concluded after a brief public comment period in which members of the public voiced positions on unrelated bills, including support for AB 2497, AB 1729, AB 2189, AB 1575, AB 2170, and opposition to AB 1603, AB 2447, AB 2411, AB 2492, and AB 1952.

Transcript Highlights:

• And also, as noted in the analysis, very limited cost to the General Fund.
• There are negligible fiscal impacts to the bill.
• Any fiscal impacts, as per the analysis, should be minimal.
• Any fiscal impacts, as per the analysis, should be minimal.
• The analysis estimates minor and absorbable cost, HCD.

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on May 13, 2026, and began by taking up a large consent calendar, moving a first group of bills to the floor consent calendar and a second group by due pass. The committee then heard and advanced a series of measures covering housing, public safety, health care, education, and local government issues. Among the bills discussed were AB 2641 on a sales tax exemption for pawnbroker redemptions, AB 2525 on a narrow Surplus Lands Act exemption for Mission Bay Park, AB 1732 and AB 2433 on student housing and the Affordable Homes Bonus Law, AB 2055 on boating safety and enforcement, AB 1579 on children’s crisis residential services, AB 2139 on a Surplus Lands Act amendment for an Inland Empire soccer project, AB 2041 on EMS reporting, AB 1973 on reproductive health scope for advanced practice clinicians, AB 1929 on health plan investment disclosures, AB 2700 on utility rates and wildfire victim compensation, AB 1809 on school job order contracting, SB 73 on election security, AB 2418 on commercial building permit timelines, AB 1970 on step therapy limits for serious mental illness and substance use treatment, AB 2361 on peer-to-peer vehicle-sharing liability, AB 1976 on bike and pedestrian project approvals, AB 2110 on tax increment financing for workforce housing, and AB 2146 on supportive housing documentation and vacancy rules. Testimony was generally supportive for the measures heard. Authors and sponsors emphasized consumer fairness, housing production, public safety, access to care, and administrative streamlining. Supporters included local governments, housing advocates, school districts, law enforcement groups, health care organizations, and affected individuals. AB 2700 drew especially extensive public testimony from wildfire survivors and local officials who urged stronger compensation for victims of PG&E-caused fires and relief from high utility costs. AB 2034 and AB 1790 were raised during public comment on bills not heard in committee, with several industry groups opposing AB 2034 and both supporters and opponents speaking on AB 1790’s Waters Edge issue. Most bills were reported out of committee on due pass motions, with several noted as amended or with members not voting on particular roll calls. The committee also read and approved a lengthy suspense calendar, then opened public comment on bills not presented that day before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• , substantial adverse impact, things of that nature.
• , substantial adverse impact, things of that nature.
• definitions of good cause adverse impact definitions of good cause adverse impact uh<00:04:51.720
• <00:04:53.759> of uh substantial adverse impact things of uh substantial adverse impact things
• analysis if we have a sunrise analysis analysis if we have a sunrise analysis for<00:29:48.120><

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee opened its first hearing of the 2025 session with procedural instructions about testimony limits, Zoom participation, written testimony, and a reconvening date if needed. It then heard SB 200 on speedy trials. The Office of the Public Defender opposed the bill, arguing it could create conflicts of interest for prosecutors, potentially make victims or witnesses quasi-parties to criminal cases, force traumatizing testimony on continuance motions, and unfairly delay trials for in-custody defendants. A World Care representative supported the bill and urged broader protections for minors, disabled people, and seniors. The chair also pressed the public defender to suggest improvements, emphasizing that the bill was driven by victims and families. No vote or final action was taken on SB 200. The committee next took up SB 8 on jury duty exemptions for health professionals. Testimony was strongly supportive from nurses, physicians, and disability advocates, who said APRNs and other nurses are in short supply and that jury service can disrupt patient care, especially in rural and neighbor island areas. One witness suggested expanding the exemption to include registered nurses as well as APRNs, while a senator raised concerns about blanket exemptions for non-practicing APRNs and suggested a time limit. The bill remained under discussion with no final action reported. The committee then heard SB 144 on chiropractic, with the state chiropractic board offering comments and the Hawaii State Chiropractic Association supporting the measure as a way to address workforce shortages and provide students more hands-on clinical experience. A World Care witness also supported the bill after clarifying her remarks. The chair then moved to SB 107 on medical informed consent, where the Hawaii Medical Board opposed the bill and the Healthcare Association of Hawaii and Queen’s Health System offered comments, citing concerns about duplicative standards. A support witness proposed expanding the bill to better address combined mental and physical health conditions. Finally, SB 189 on breast cancer screening drew support from the Hawaii Medical Association, Hawaii Radiological Society, Queen’s Health Systems, and others, while the Insurance Division raised concerns about possible insurance mandate defrayment and the need for a sunrise analysis. Senators also asked about local demographic data and coverage impacts; the chair indicated decision-making would be deferred to another day.

Transcript Highlights:

• more than the estimated economic impact more than the estimated economic impact attributed<00:24
• The eighth component of review is an analysis of cumulative impacts of federal and state policies aimed
• The one exception to this is an analysis The one exception to this is an analysis of<01:02:28.240
• impacts of a single tax expenditure. impacts of a single tax expenditure.
• The cumulative fiscal impact policies.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• A Bloomberg News analysis of 38 million mortgages found that, controlling for income, loan size, and
• This rule eliminates findings for disparate impact testing as evidence for determining whether there
• An analysis, in fact, of 37 million mortgage applications submitted between 2018 and 2024 showed that
• This rule eliminates findings for disparate impact testing as evidence for determining whether there
• guys in one way or another, and it impacts us all.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So at the start of the pilot program, there's a cost-benefit analysis done.
• Frickie, does L.C., what has to trigger L.C. to do cost-benefit analysis?
• I look at your fiscal note, not the cost-benefit analysis.
• I'm not sure I've ever reviewed the cost-benefit analysis.
• I look at your fiscal note, not the cost-benefit analysis.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The conference committee on HB 1248 met to review differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill, which concerns the PERS pilot program and insurance mandate process. Rebecca Frickie, executive director of PERS, explained that the Senate version removed the House provisions repealing the insurance mandate process, kept the two-year PERS pilot intact, and preserved the requirement for a report at the end of the pilot while removing language that would have required PERS to submit a bill to expand coverage to the commercial market. Members discussed the bill’s cost-benefit analysis requirements. Frickie said the current law triggers a cost-benefit analysis at the start of the pilot and again when a bill is introduced to roll coverage out commercially, but the Senate draft would change that to only one analysis at the end of the pilot if a rollout bill is introduced. Legislative Council indicated that if the committee wants that simplified approach, additional conforming changes are needed elsewhere in the code. Senators also asked about the purpose of the initial analysis and whether it is used beyond being attached to the bill packet; Frickie said PERS relies primarily on its own actuary and was not aware of broader use. The committee discussed whether the revised process would still require legislative sponsorship for any future rollout, and Frickie confirmed that a legislator or other sponsor would need to introduce such a bill. Examples mentioned included insulin caps and breast exams as possible future pilot items. The committee agreed to request Legislative Council draft the needed language changes and planned to reconvene after receiving the updated draft; no final vote was taken and the meeting was adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• development and delivery analysis development and delivery analysis this<00:09:37.040> is
• for the bhp impacts for the bhp impacts what<00:14:24.480> we<00:14:24.639> really
• Delivery and reform analysis report.
• discussed in the fiscal analysis discussed in the fiscal analysis on<00:24:33.279> page<00
• discussed in the fiscal analysis discussed in the fiscal analysis and<00:24:39.760> we<00

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee reviewed a side-by-side comparison and fiscal analysis of Senate File 3472, a reinsurance-related bill affecting the premium security plan account, MinnesotaCare, and related health care funding. Staff explained the Senate and House versions of the bill, including how the Senate proposal extends reinsurance for five years and uses a projected $1.087 billion general fund transfer to fully fund claims and administrative costs through fiscal year 2028, while the House version conditions continuation of the program on federal approval of the state innovation waiver. The fiscal presentation also covered appropriations for MNsure, a mental health parity and substance abuse office, and House provisions for delivery reform and a public option study, along with a House transfer of $110.674 million to the health care access fund. Members debated the budget horizon and whether costs should be forecast beyond fiscal year 2025. Representative Schultz argued that the spreadsheet understated the broader fiscal impact of reinsurance and warned about future funding cliffs for MinnesotaCare and other health programs, while other members and staff noted that the state’s standard forecast ends in fiscal year 2025 and that the fiscal note only estimated reinsurance costs through the five-year extension. Supporters said reinsurance was the best available option to reduce premium increases, especially in rural areas, and some pointed to a public option as a longer-term alternative. Opponents argued reinsurance does not address underlying health care costs or deductibles and urged consideration of other reforms. House Research then walked through the policy differences. House-only provisions would change Minnesota Comprehensive Health Association board membership, require platinum plans in certain markets, expand postnatal coverage, require a prescription drug benefit in some plans, set a minimum actuarial value for MinnesotaCare, create an Office of Mental Health Parity and Substance Abuse Accountability, and direct reports on delivery reform and a public option. The shared provisions would extend the premium security program to 2027 and delay the transfer of remaining premium security plan funds to the health care access fund until 2029, with the House language again contingent on federal waiver approval. No formal vote was taken in the excerpt; the chair closed discussion after hearing no further questions and indicated members would be contacted about next steps.

Transcript Highlights:

• Specifically, the analysis will consider the impact of LTSS need on income adequacy, as well as caregiver
• That analysis is available on our website.
• That is an analysis.
• We don't get direct impact the way Director DeMores has some direct numbers about impacted IHSS recipients
• We don't get direct impact the way Director DeMores has some direct numbers about impacted IHSS recipients

Summary: The joint Assembly Budget Subcommittee hearing focused first on long-term services and supports for older adults, especially the “forgotten/overlooked middle” who earn too much for Medi-Cal but cannot afford private long-term care. Administration witnesses from DHCS, the Department of Aging, and Social Services described Medicare’s limited long-term care coverage, Medi-Cal’s role, the elimination of the Medi-Cal asset test, and ongoing state studies and listening sessions on financing options. Testimony from advocates and researchers emphasized rising homelessness among older adults, the need for better navigation and coordination across health, aging, housing, and social service systems, and short-term policy steps such as share-of-cost reform, housing stability supports, and protecting home- and community-based services. Members highlighted the need for a coordinated, no-wrong-door approach and asked for the most impactful budget investments to address affordability and homelessness risk. The second major topic was the Community-Based Adult Services (CBAS) program. CDA reported that CBAS helps participants remain in the community, that 304 centers operate statewide serving about 42,000 people, and that demand is stable but access gaps remain in some regions. DHCS explained that a 2024 rate increase authorized by SB 159 became inoperative after Proposition 35, and that a separate 10% rate change on the fee schedule was the result of a DHCS system error; the department said it would not require recoupment, though managed care plans may act under their contracts. CBAS providers and advocates warned that reimbursement rates have not kept pace with costs, that several centers have closed, and that clawbacks could trigger more closures. They requested $74.8 million ongoing General Fund to close part of the rate gap and preserve the program, while members expressed concern about closures and the cost savings of keeping people out of more expensive institutional care. The hearing then moved to In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) and statewide collective bargaining. CDSS reviewed provider recruitment and retention efforts, including electronic timesheets, direct deposit, and the now-completed IHSS Career Pathways program, which trained more than 59,000 providers. CDSS also summarized its AB 102 workgroup report on statewide versus regional bargaining, saying the final report would be sent to the Legislature soon and that statewide bargaining appeared more viable than regional bargaining, though it would require clear statutory scope and major fiscal changes. The department estimated that each $1 per hour statewide wage increase would cost at least $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion annually. Labor advocates argued that IHSS wages, benefits, and training are too inconsistent across counties and called for statewide bargaining, consumer participation, and ongoing state funding. County representatives supported stronger wages but cautioned that counties need protection from new costs and administrative burdens, and consumer advocates warned that moving bargaining to the state could weaken local consumer control and the program’s consumer-driven structure.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we've done a lot of analysis and we've focused on a couple of measures.
• Did that analysis incorporate visits to the actual facilities? No.
• on the impacts of the targets on access to care.
• percent, and that analysis did not take into account health system costs that further impacted our bottom
• State and throughout the nation have been negatively impacted by that.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The committee analysis highlights there is no fiscal cost to the state.
• The committee analysis highlights there is no fiscal cost to the state.
• As the analysis notes, there is no fiscal effect.
• As the analysis notes, the bill has minor and observable costs.
• Just want to add to the very thorough analysis that the impact to the state would actually begin in 2028

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on May 6, 2026, with a quorum present and began by approving two large groups of bills on consent: a due-pass-to-consent set and a due-pass set for bills eligible for the floor consent calendar. The committee then heard a series of author presentations, generally focused on bills with minor, absorbable, or no state costs, and most measures were reported out with due-pass recommendations, often on roll call and sometimes with members not voting or bills held on call. Among the bills discussed were AB 1792 on updating health guidance to address AI-related digital safety risks for students, AB 1843 on removing barriers to hepatitis C treatment, AB 2350 on consumer protections for rent-now-pay-later products, AB 2780 on technical changes to teachers’ retirement law, AB 2117 on restructuring K-12 education governance, AB 1913 and AB 2706 on emergency equipment authority and cannery law modernization, and AB 1914 and AB 1820 on child care planning and EV charger permitting. Other measures included AB 2417 on retirement information for community college faculty, AB 2506 on cannabis commerce involving tribal licensees, AB 2200 on greenhouse energy-code compliance, AB 1664 on notice to state officials when election records are seized or subpoenaed, AB 2135 on nursing home discharge notices, AB 2697 on allowing drive-through cannabis sales with local approval, AB 2518 on a San Diego County energization-delay pilot, AB 1665 on mental health training for school coaches, AB 2532 on cannabis beverage safeguards and labeling, AB 1627 on disqualifying certain federal immigration enforcement personnel from becoming peace officers, AB 2121 on community college funding safeguards, AB 2771 on extending the Bureau for Postsecondary Private Proprietary Education sunset, and AB 2120 on preserving LAUSD’s selected certification hiring practice. Most witnesses and sponsors described the bills as low-cost, technical, or modernization measures; a few bills drew opposition or “oppose unless amended” testimony, including AB 1820 and AB 2706-related items, but no major floor votes were taken in the transcript beyond committee recommendations. The committee also heard AB 2541, a presentation-only suspense-file bill to create a lowrider specialty license plate that would generate revenue for community and youth programs. The bill drew enthusiastic bipartisan comments and requests to be added as coauthors, but it was sent to suspense for later consideration. Afterward, the committee approved a lengthy suspense calendar and opened general public comment, where members of the public voiced support or opposition on various other bills, including telework, physical therapy licensure, pesticide restrictions, data disaggregation, and other measures not heard that day. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• And also, as noted in the analysis, very limited cost to the General Fund.
• There are negligible fiscal impacts to the bill.
• Any fiscal impacts, as per the analysis, should be minimal.
• Any fiscal impacts, as per the analysis, should be minimal.
• The analysis estimates minor and absorbable cost, HCD.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on May 13, 2026, with a large agenda of 196 bills. After establishing quorum, the committee first approved two consent calendars covering numerous bills, then heard a series of author presentations and public testimony. Most measures discussed were housing, public safety, health care, and local government bills, with many authors and sponsors emphasizing that the proposals had minor, absorbable, or no state costs. Among the bills heard were AB 2641 on a sales tax exemption for pawnbroker redemptions; AB 2525 to create a narrow Surplus Lands Act exemption for Mission Bay Park in San Diego; AB 1732 and AB 2433 on student housing and the density bonus law; AB 2055 updating boating safety and enforcement laws; AB 1579 expanding children’s crisis residential options; AB 2139 for an Inland Empire sports-related Surplus Lands Act exemption; AB 2041 on EMS reporting compliance; AB 1973 expanding advanced practice clinicians’ authority for reproductive care; AB 1929 requiring health plan investment disclosures; AB 2700 on utility rates and wildfire victim compensation; AB 1809 removing the sunset on school job order contracting; SB 73 strengthening election security; AB 2418 streamlining commercial building permits; AB 1970 limiting step therapy for serious mental illness and substance use treatment; AB 2361 on peer-to-peer vehicle-sharing liability; AB 1976 streamlining bike and pedestrian project approvals; AB 2110 authorizing local tax increment financing for workforce housing; and AB 2146 easing documentation for supportive housing placements. Testimony was largely in support, often from sponsoring organizations, local governments, housing advocates, health groups, law enforcement, and wildfire survivors. AB 2700 drew especially extensive public support from Camp Fire and Tubbs Fire survivors and local officials, who urged stronger compensation for wildfire victims and relief from utility costs. AB 2034 and AB 1790 were mentioned during public comment as bills with opposition from industry groups, while AB 1903 and SB 417 also drew comment. Several bills were amended or noted as being subject to future amendments, including AB 1732, AB 2041, and AB 2418. The committee took action on the bills as they were heard, generally voting them out on due pass motions, many by roll call and several with members not voting on particular measures. The suspense calendar was then read and deemed approved, and the hearing concluded after public comment on bills not heard that day.

Transcript Highlights:

• analysis analysis comparison<00:31:56.240> to<00:31:56.720> a<00:31:57.440> light
• spend any money it has no fiscal impact spend any money it has no fiscal impact and<00:48:00.520
• It says it's not limited to planning, analysis, predesign, design, engineering, environmental analysis
• It says it's not limited to planning, analysis, predesign, design, engineering, environmental analysis
• <00:51:33.280> I bill does not have a fiscal impact I bill does not have a fiscal impact I

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The impacts on taxpayers vary greatly, right? The impacts on taxpayers vary greatly, right?
• think it will really meaningfully impact... ...impacts on spending decisions and resource decisions,
• Both of them will have impacts.
• And I shouldn't assume this, but Economic impacts, and impacts on other elements, as you mentioned.
• What is impacting economic growth in Massachusetts? What is impacting migration in Massachusetts?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on two proposed ballot initiatives: one to reduce the state personal income tax rate from 5% to 4% over three years, and another to revise the state’s tax collection cap/62F process so it would be based on prior-year collections plus wage growth and include surtax revenue. The committee chair and House co-chair outlined the hearing process, and the first witness was Doug Howgate of the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation, who testified as the committee’s subject-matter expert on both measures. He said the income tax proposal would lower taxes broadly but would reduce state revenue by about $5.4 billion when fully implemented, with an estimated $800 million hit in FY27, and he discussed possible effects on competitiveness, taxpayer savings, and public finances. On the 62F proposal, he said the revised cap would make refunds more likely, could have produced several large refunds in recent years, and would reduce stabilization fund deposits and constrain recovery after recessions. Committee members questioned Howgate about competitiveness, outmigration, prior tax ballot measures, spending growth, MassHealth, and the interaction between the income tax and surtax. He emphasized that taxes are only one part of the state’s overall competitiveness and that housing, public services, and other factors also matter. He also noted that the surtax is constitutionally restricted but can still support ongoing spending choices. After his testimony, the committee moved to the proponents’ panel. Proponents of both initiatives, including representatives from Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts, the National Federation of Independent Business, Pioneer Institute, and the Mass Opportunity Alliance, argued that the measures would improve affordability, help retain residents and businesses, and support job growth. They cited polling support, outmigration, small-business reinvestment, and comparisons to lower-tax states such as North Carolina. Their economist, Rebecca Paxton, said her model showed smaller revenue losses than critics claim and projected that the revised revenue cap would not create additional annual revenue losses while producing more regular taxpayer refunds. Committee members pressed the panel on competitiveness, prior ballot initiative implementation, and whether the measures would actually address broader affordability pressures; the hearing ended with the committee continuing to take questions from the proponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• > the<01:10:14.719> training, five, an analysis of the training, five, an analysis of the
• <01:10:21.360> of It would also conduct an analysis of It would also conduct an analysis of
• Uh an analysis of fire retention.
• Um we um impacted um by crime.
• <01:21:38.080> by the suburbs might be impacted by the suburbs might be impacted by violence

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It has a $500 million-a-day impact to the nation's GDP.
• It has a $500 million-a-day impact to the nation's GDP, and I'd ask for your favorable passage.
• This has a tremendous positive impact on small businesses.
• Now, this doesn't impact the clear lien process that's already in place.
• It impacted the Fifth Ward of Houston, and now they have higher cancer rates.

Bills: HR170, HR191, HR206, HR207, HR208, HCR53, HCR60, HCR68, HB714, HB762, SB40, SB48, SB55, SB56, SB69, SB115, SB133, SB151, SB170, SB235, SB278, SB330, SB420, SB438, SB449, SB489

Keywords: U.S. Highway 90, US 90, Highway 90, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, DOTD, bridge removal, closed bridges, bridge demolition, transportation funding, federal appropriations, THUD appropriations, Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development, infrastructure, road reconstruction, evacuation route, hurricane evacuation corridor, New Orleans metro area, Mississippi Gulf Coast, public safety

Summary: The House Transportation Committee met on Tuesday, May 5, and considered a long agenda of mostly transportation, public safety, and local infrastructure measures. Among the bills reported favorably were Senate Bill 420, which adds Vermilion and Iberia Parish representation to the Lafayette Metropolitan Expressway Commission; Senate Bill 69, which updates appointments to the South Tangipahoa Parish Port Commission after redistricting; Senate Bill 40, which expands Louisiana’s move-over/safety protections for emergency and disabled vehicles; and House resolutions from Rep. Dickerson urging DOTD action on Highway 16 widening, turn lanes on Highway 1024, and a roundabout on Highway 1019. The committee also advanced HCR 53 creating a study committee on oversized vehicle permits, SB 438 increasing per diem for the Greater Lafourche Port Commission, SB 449 giving the New Orleans Public Belt more procurement flexibility, SB 115 allowing DOTD to assume certain federal NEPA duties to speed project delivery, and SB 489 authorizing third-party verification of vehicle insurance coverage. Members heard testimony on several safety and enforcement measures. SB 151 would flag OMV records for people who owe DNA samples under CODIS-related criminal provisions; State Police explained it would help law enforcement collect required samples and aid cold cases. SB 48 would create driver’s license reciprocity between Louisiana and Ireland, and SB 235 would clarify payment and liquidated damages rules for public contracts, with contractors and industry representatives saying it would help ensure timely payment to contractors, subs, and suppliers. SB 55 clarified that seat belts must be worn across both the lap and shoulder, and SB 278 required ignition interlock devices for DUI-related license reinstatement; committee members raised questions about due process, vehicle use, and how the devices would work, but both bills were reported favorably. Several measures drew more extensive debate. HB 762, as amended, would give OMV discretion over referring certain debts to the Office of Debt Recovery or Attorney General, and the amendment passed 14-2 after discussion about relief for drivers who cannot pay. SB 330 on school-zone automated speed enforcement received an amendment preserving existing compliant pavement markings, but a separate amendment to exempt Shreveport, Gretna, Livonia, and Westwego from the law failed on a roll call vote. HB 714, as substituted, would have created a railroad commission and required railroads to address blighted or abandoned lines, but after concerns about federal preemption, definition of blight, and whether a new commission was needed, Rep. Phelps moved to defer the bill, and the committee agreed. The meeting ended with adjournment after a brief recognition of committee staff and visitors.

Transcript Highlights:

• our economy for years to come. and impact our economy for years to come.
• It is an annual positive impact of... Yes, follow up, Senator Hicks. Thank you, Mr. President.
• During this five-year time frame, do we know what the impact to the system is estimated to be as far
• Again, we see this; it's a non-fiscal, there's not an impact.
• This has a direct impact on child wellbeing.

Bills: HB3257, HB3176, HB3544, HB3619, HB3546, HB1782, HB2293, HB4358, HB3081, HB3983, HB3790, HJR1023, HB4139, HB3297, HB3041, HB3673, HB4105, HB3338, HB3048, SR33, SCR21, SCR20, HB4030, HB4031, HB4032, HB4034, HB4036, HB4037, HB4038, HB4040, HB4041, HB4042, HB4043, HB4045, HB4046, HB4047, HB4048, HB4044, HB4050, HB4051, HB4052, HB4053, HB4054, HB4056, HB4057, HB4071, HB4065, HB4067, HB4072, HB2992, HB4338, HB4170

Keywords: veterans, disability benefits, federal law, Oklahoma Statutes, military service, Oklahoma, Gas Hub, artificial intelligence, national laboratory, public-private partnerships, aerospace, high-performance computing, economic development, social AI companions, minors, emotional attachment, safety protocols, civil penalties, parental controls, geographic information

Transcript Highlights:

• would push back on the fact that this money, especially for the fairgrounds, does not significantly impact

Bills: SB1290, SB1530, SB1847, HR1050, SB169, SB1377, SB1990, SB1991, SB1778, SB1579, SB1992, SB3, SB2028, SB1928, SB2127, SB2117, SB1439, SB1930, SB330, SB1191, SB2110, SB2134, SB2069, SB2095, SB1613, SB1246, SB1976, SB1346, SB1509, SB2071, SB259, SB1314

Keywords: 2-1-1 services, revolving fund, Department of Human Services, crisis pregnancy, abortion, legal funding, research funding, development rebate, Oklahoma Department of Commerce, tax incentives, higher education partnerships, Medicaid, ADvantage Waiver, home-based services, eligibility criteria, healthcare, senior services, Taiwan, Oklahoma, sister-state relationship

Transcript Highlights:

• I kind of anticipated that response because I went and did an analysis of the comparison. Did you?
• The bill says the city or county cannot unilaterally apply later zoning or land use impact fees, building
• code changes that substantially impair the district. impact fees, building code changes that substantially

Bills: SB1290, SB1530, SB1847, HR1050, SB169, SB1377, SB1990, SB1991, SB1778, SB1579, SB1992, SB3, SB2028, SB1928, SB2127, SB2117, SB1439, SB1930, SB330, SB1191, SB2110, SB2134, SB2069, SB2095, SB1613, SB1246, SB1976, SB1346, SB1509, SB2071, SB259, SB1314

Keywords: 2-1-1 services, revolving fund, Department of Human Services, crisis pregnancy, abortion, legal funding, research funding, development rebate, Oklahoma Department of Commerce, tax incentives, higher education partnerships, Medicaid, ADvantage Waiver, home-based services, eligibility criteria, healthcare, senior services, Taiwan, Oklahoma, sister-state relationship

Transcript Highlights:

• So, with this, we will have an additional fiscal impact to the taxpayers.
• Although it is a small fiscal impact, it is a fiscal impact. Thank you for the question.

Bills: SB1290, SB1530, SB1847, HR1050, SB169, SB1377, SB1990, SB1991, SB1778, SB1579, SB1992, SB3, SB2028, SB1928, SB2127, SB2117, SB1439, SB1930, SB330, SB1191, SB2110, SB2134, SB2069, SB2095, SB1613, SB1246, SB1976, SB1346, SB1509, SB2071, SB259, SB1314

Keywords: 2-1-1 services, revolving fund, Department of Human Services, crisis pregnancy, abortion, legal funding, research funding, development rebate, Oklahoma Department of Commerce, tax incentives, higher education partnerships, Medicaid, ADvantage Waiver, home-based services, eligibility criteria, healthcare, senior services, Taiwan, Oklahoma, sister-state relationship

Bills: SB 2, SB 3, SB 4, SB 5, SB 6, SB 7, SB 8, SB 9, SB 10, SB 11, SB 12, SB 13, SB 14, SB 15, SB 16, SB 17, SB 18, SB 34

Keywords: flash flood, flood warning, outdoor warning siren, emergency alert, disaster preparedness, flood mitigation, Hill Country floods, Texas Water Development Board, municipalities, counties, local government mandate, public safety, grant program, backup power, weather siren, emergency management, flood-prone area, warning system, redistricting, election