Transcript Highlights:

• And these individuals met with parolees on the day of release and they would conduct their own evaluations
• , for example, like a substance abuse evaluation, and determine whether or not treatment was necessary
• had a provider that had that level of expertise and the credentials to be not only conducting the evaluations
• had a provider that had that level of expertise and the credentials to be not only conducting the evaluations

Keywords: 1212, all

Summary: The Special Commission on Correctional Consolidation and Collaboration met on June 15 with Senators Brownsberger and Representative Hunt co-chairing. After deciding not to approve prior meeting notes at this session, the commission heard testimony from the Massachusetts Parole Officers Association (MPOA), represented by Brian Lucier and Shauna Hawksley. MPOA described its role across field offices, correctional facilities, and specialized units, and emphasized that parole officers provide community-based case management and reentry support by connecting people to housing, mental health, substance use treatment, employment, education, and public benefits. They argued that parole officers develop local expertise and relationships that improve referrals, and said there is room for better coordination with DOC and House of Correction reentry staff, especially because referrals are sometimes duplicated or need to be changed after release. They also noted the loss of reentry navigator positions in 2025 and said those functions would be more effective if positioned in the community rather than in custody. The MPOA also urged consideration of restoring regional reentry centers, which they said previously improved information sharing, reduced duplication, and strengthened reentry services. They contrasted those centers with Community Justice Support Centers, saying CJSCs can be hard to access because of location, transportation, and work-schedule conflicts, while parole’s former regional centers were referral-based and did not require regular attendance. Commission members asked about parole training, arrest authority, POST/MPTC participation, and revocations. MPOA said new officers receive about 500 hours of parole-specific academy training plus firearms, defensive tactics, and first-responder instruction, but parole is not currently tied into MPTC because it is not POST-certified. They also said they do not have data on what proportion of revocations are driven by public-safety threats versus barriers like housing or employment, but anecdotally revocations are now less often for first-time technical or treatment-related issues and more often for conduct posing a community risk. In the discussion of next steps, members talked about extending the commission’s reporting deadline from September 30 to November 30 through the pending budget, finishing remaining DOC facility visits in the fall, and holding additional meetings on mental health and other unresolved issues. Several members said the commission should continue trying to engage the judiciary and district attorneys, while recognizing that participation may be difficult to secure. The meeting ended with agreement to adjourn and continue the work later in the year.

Transcript Highlights:

• And these individuals met with parolees on the day of release and they would conduct their own evaluations
• , for example, like a substance abuse evaluation, and determine whether or not treatment was necessary
• had a provider that had that level of expertise and the credentials to be not only conducting the evaluations
• had a provider that had that level of expertise and the credentials to be not only conducting the evaluations

Summary: The Special Commission on Correctional Consolidation and Collaboration met on June 15, with co-chairs Senator Will Brownsberger and Representative Dan Hunt. The commission approved delaying action on prior meeting summary/minutes until the next meeting, and the chair noted the statutory reporting deadline is being extended from September 30 to November 30 through the pending general appropriations budget. Members also discussed future work, including remaining Department of Correction facility visits, possible fall meetings, and whether to invite additional stakeholders such as the judiciary, district attorneys, and the Department of Mental Health. The main testimony came from the Massachusetts Parole Officers Association, represented by Brian Lucier and Shauna Hawksley. They described parole officers’ role in community supervision and reentry case management, including referrals for housing, mental health, substance use treatment, employment, education, and public benefits. They argued for stronger collaboration between parole, DOC, and county facilities, and said parole officers develop local expertise that can improve referrals after release. They also said the former reentry navigator positions, which were lost in 2025, were valuable and should be restored or better positioned in the community. The MPOA also urged consideration of recreating regional reentry centers, which they said previously improved information sharing, reduced duplication, and supported people released without supervision. Members and witnesses discussed barriers such as funding, staffing, transportation, and location of community justice support centers, as well as the need for better coordination so referrals made inside facilities match community resources. Commission members asked about training, arrest authority, POST certification, revocations tied to public safety versus social-service needs, and the role of sheriffs and DOC reentry teams; the witnesses said parole officers receive specialized academy and in-service training but are not currently tied into MPTC because they are not post-certified. The meeting ended with agreement to continue work over the summer and reconvene in the fall.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, and I feel like any changes should be evaluated with long-term community impact in mind.
• Um and I feel like any changes should be Um and I feel like any changes should be evaluated<00:07:22.960
• ><c> with</c><00:07:23.160><c> long-term</c><00:07:24.360><c> um</c> evaluated with long-term um evaluated

Bills: HCR202

Committee: Senate Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs

Keywords: Hawaii, renewable energy, task force, energy independence, cost savings, decarbonization, public utilities, stakeholders, clean energy goals, 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint committees on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs and Consumer Commerce and Consumer Protection heard HCR 202 HD2, a resolution creating a task force to study Hawaii’s electric generation mix and related costs. Testimony from the Hawaii State Energy Office was neutral and stood on written comments, while another testifier supported the resolution, emphasizing affordability, reliability, and the need to understand the right balance of thermal generation and renewables as the state moves toward its 2045 renewable goals. The chairs said they had conferred on the measure and outlined recommended amendments, including adding study of the separation of ownership and control of generation versus transmission and distribution, and adding Senate committee representation to the task force. The Consumer Commerce and Consumer Protection committee voted to pass HCR 202 HD2 with amendments; the chair, vice chair, and another member voted aye, with one senator excused, and the recommendation was adopted. The Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs committee did not have quorum at that time and said it would take its vote later. The Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs committee also heard HCR 165, concerning pickleball courts in Hawaii Kai. One resident testified in opposition, citing concerns about permanent lights, permanent nets, noise, light pollution, safety, maintenance, and the loss of multi-use flexibility. After discussion, the chair recommended passing the measure as is, and the committee said it would vote the next day because it lacked quorum. The committee also heard HCR 154 and HCR 43 with the Transportation Committee; HCR 154 was passed unamended, and HCR 43, which urged raised crosswalks near Ala Wai Elementary School for pedestrian safety, was also passed unamended. Supporters of HCR 43 described heavy pedestrian traffic, schoolchildren crossing, and unsafe vehicle turning patterns at the intersections. The Transportation Committee adopted both recommendations, while the Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs committee scheduled its votes for the following day.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we're going to evaluate whether or not this theory of change is that if we can just meet the basic
• And University of Pennsylvania is also evaluating this work.
• And University of Pennsylvania is also evaluating this work.
• And University of Pennsylvania is also evaluating this work.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And how do you evaluate that scientifically as to the impact that it has?
• And how do you evaluate that scientifically as to the impact that it has?
• So King County does submit projects to the board, and they're evaluated by the board.
• So King County does submit projects to the board, and they're evaluated by the board.

Summary: The Capital Budget Committee held a work session on fish passage and barrier prioritization. Tom Jameson of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife briefed members on the state salmon recovery framework, the types and prevalence of fish passage barriers, and the many existing barrier-removal programs. He explained that culverts are the most common barrier, but levees, tidegates, dams, and other structures also affect salmon and steelhead. He also described the state’s fish passage database, the assessment criteria used to determine whether a structure is a barrier, and the Brian Abbott Fish Barrier Removal Board’s role in funding projects. Jameson reviewed the history of the board and its grant pathways, noting that the Legislature has funded 199 projects totaling nearly $225 million over five biennia, including significant federal support in the last biennium. He then focused on the new statewide prioritization strategy directed by the Legislature in 2020. A science panel recommended using an optimization model and then scoring and ranking barriers, but Jameson said the model depends on better stream mapping and ongoing “snapping” of stream layers to known barrier locations. He said the strategy is intended to produce watershed-based priority lists rather than a single statewide ranking. Members asked about how barriers are assessed during fish migration periods, how private land access affects inventory work, how local governments can report completed corrections, and how the prioritization criteria weight Chinook salmon and southern resident orca recovery. Jameson said urban areas with downstream barriers or heavily altered streams may be less recoverable, while rural watersheds may offer greater benefit. He also explained the federal culvert injunction, including ongoing obligations for state agencies and DOT’s 2030 target, and said the injunction never fully ends because new barriers are continually discovered and must be addressed over time. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• to the start of session, and I received a couple emails from some families who had requested an evaluation
• If that's the case, the student at the end of the day is going to be evaluated for it.
• We're not asking them to change their evaluation. We're not asking them to qualify more people.
• , I think every family with a student with special needs is going to benefit knowing that those evaluations

Bills: HB4491 , HB3240 , HB4146 , HB4158 , HB4159 , HB3718

Committee: House A&B Education Subcommittee

Keywords: extracurricular activities, charter schools, student eligibility, virtual education, Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association, prayer, religious freedom, public schools, consent, First Amendment, school policy, paid maternity leave, school employees, public health, childcare, work-life balance, education, family leave, tuition, grant

Transcript Highlights:

• do you mean the process of how one comes to be, like the process of approving it or how or the evaluation
• I think each city could determine under the state statute how to evaluate Slum and Blight.
• They've started evaluating MRAs since the 1970s.
• I mean, they need to be evaluated and what have you. But the question I had, Mr.

Bills: HB248 , HB309 , HB332 , SB48

Committee: House House Taxation & Revenue

Keywords: general obligation bonds, GO bonds, capital projects, bond election, property tax levy, state debt, state finance, capital outlay, senior centers, senior citizen facilities, aging services, long-term services, libraries, library acquisitions, broadband for libraries, higher education, university capital projects, community colleges, tribal schools, special schools

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, what it does is it really provides more prescriptive criteria for how we evaluate the projects
• It's going to be evaluated by seven agencies, and so it's going to...
• It's going to be evaluated by seven agencies.
• Game and Fish, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Finance Administration all evaluating

Summary: The committee met on American Indian Day and first rolled Committee Substitute House Bill 110 at the sponsor’s request. It then heard House Memorial 32, which would direct the Indian Affairs Department and the Commission on the Status of Women to study the history and ongoing impacts of forced and coerced sterilization of Indigenous women and women of color in New Mexico, including known cases, access to reproductive health services, educational policy, and possible reparations. The sponsor, survivors, and expert witnesses described personal experiences and historical research, arguing the issue remains unresolved and that New Mexico could become the first state to formally acknowledge it through a memorial and study. Support came from the Commission on the Status of Women, Planned Parenthood, ACLU of New Mexico, and others; one member objected to the phrase “reproductive justice,” but the sponsor declined to change the language. The committee approved the memorial on a 7-1 vote, with Representative Block voting no. The committee then heard House Bill 109, which would speed up the approval and release of Water Trust Board funding by suspending the current legislative authorization step and relying on a more streamlined review process. The sponsor and NMFA witnesses said the bill would help rural and small communities avoid delays that drive up construction costs, especially given inflation, drought, and the large number of water projects needing funding. They noted the bill would still involve review by multiple state agencies and that legislators could still obtain project information from NMFA. Members asked about oversight, transparency, and whether the change would reduce legislative control, but supporters said the current process adds months and can force communities to reapply when costs rise. The committee passed the bill on a voice vote after a motion for due pass, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the question may be week, 2 weeks ago in a city of Fort Lauderdale, there was a process of evaluating
• Tell us when you'd be able to speak to them. >> So when we evaluate aircraft, we look at safety first
• We're still evaluating what those when the facts are below and to the sides, their craft, those are different
• And I would say we have to still evaluate some of those.

Transcript Highlights:

• forecast that will not support the spending at its recent rate of growth, meaning we still need to re-evaluate
• , reconsider, Meaning we still need to re-evaluate, reconsider, and re-address those fiscal strategies
• $6.3 million in budget authority for our newborn screening program, supported by the Planning and Evaluation
• And while our Planning and Evaluation Trust Fund has sufficient cash to absorb these costs, we cannot

Summary: The Legislative Budget Commission met with a quorum present to hear the constitutionally required Long-Range Financial Outlook and consider a series of budget amendments. Amy Baker of the Office of Economic and Demographic Research presented the outlook, describing Florida’s continued population growth, strong wage growth, an aging population, housing-market softening, and low consumer sentiment. She said the general revenue forecast was largely unchanged from March, but the state’s funds available had improved because of legislative actions in 2025 that increased the balance forward. She also noted strong reserves, a projected current-year Medicaid deficit of about $125 million, and a three-year outlook that remains positive in the first year but turns negative in years two and three. She highlighted the risk of co-occurring catastrophic events, using a normalized Great Miami Hurricane scenario to illustrate potential state losses. The outlook was adopted after brief comments from House and Senate members emphasizing fiscal restraint and efficiency. The commission then approved multiple budget amendments, mostly without objection. The Agency for Health Care Administration received amendments to realign funding for Florida KidCare based on estimating conference results, to provide $85 million in budget authority for disproportionate share hospital payments, and to adjust Medicaid and long-term care appropriations, including placing surplus funds into reserve. The Department of Health received $6.3 million in additional authority for newborn screening. The Department of Corrections and the Department of Management Services each received $2.2 million in Private Inmate Welfare Trust Fund authority for repair invoices and pending projects. The Department of State was authorized to release $2.5 million in nonrecurring general revenue for cultural and museum grants and America 250 commemorative grants. The Department of Transportation received approval for a project roll-forward and for work program changes, including advancing I-95 widening in Duval County and the I-4 corridor in Polk and Osceola counties. The meeting ended with a motion to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• amount been derived from the work that UND in the engineering department has been doing with their evaluation
• and extraction and taking it... ...been doing with their evaluation and extraction and taking it to
• We've not done any evaluation.
• We're still into the, we're new, we want to move forward, but we have not taken any evaluation whether

Bills: SB2339

Committee: Senate Energy and Natural Resources

Keywords: wildfire mitigation, utility liability, strict liability, electric utility, public service commission, PSC, rural electric cooperative, municipal utility, transmission provider, vegetation management, power lines, reclosers, electrical safety, wildfire prevention, grid reliability, public safety, first responders, ANSI A300, National Electrical Safety Code, community outreach

Summary: The Energy and Natural Resources Committee continued work on House Bill 1459, which concerns rare earth and critical mineral recovery from North Dakota lignite coal. Testimony from UND researcher Dan Ludo and industry representative David Straely focused on the urgency of developing the process quickly, the technical differences between extracting minerals from coal versus ash, and the potential value of elements such as terbium, dysprosium, gallium, germanium, and synthetic graphite. Straely argued the bill is constitutional, limited to minerals within the coal seam, and needed to avoid years of quiet title litigation and provide certainty for development and compensation to royalty owners. Committee members raised questions about landowner rights, compensation levels, possible amendments from the Department of Trust Lands, and whether the bill should be modified to address constitutional concerns or sunset provisions. No final action was taken on HB 1459; the chair said parties could work on language until Monday before the committee revisits it. The committee then returned to House Bill 1579, a high-load study bill with a possible energy infrastructure investment amendment. Jody Smith of the Retirement and Investment Office presented updated language adding guardrails for in-state infrastructure investing, including requiring approved projects to be underwritten and managed by a qualified investment manager or financial institution and to follow the Legacy Fund investment policy. Members discussed whether the amendment had been shared with the House sponsor and noted that the related bill 1330 was still pending, so HB 1579 was being held for the time being. Finally, the committee took up House Bill 1566, which had an amendment from the Agriculture Commissioner’s office. The committee adopted the amendment 7-0, then passed a due-pass motion on the amended bill and referred it to Appropriations, also by a 7-0 vote. Members discussed the bill’s fiscal impact, including an estimated $580,000 for two FTEs over two years, and clarified that the study component remains in the bill. Senator Gerhardt was assigned to carry the measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'd like to note that Hayash already requires an effective safety and health program to identify, evaluate
• safety and health program<00:11:21.839><c> to</c><00:11:22.440><c> identify,</c><00:11:23.440><c> evaluate
• ,</c><00:11:24.079><c> and</c> program to identify, evaluate, and program to identify, evaluate, and

Committee: House Tourism

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is a federal government issue, but this is something that you would have to evaluate.
• going to give an incentive to someone that's where the Chinese could just— ...that you would have to evaluate
• But in general, I do think we— that you would have to evaluate, like if you're going to give an incentive
• But, you know, in some of the framework I mentioned, it can be evaluated whether the raw materials are
• So those are all things that could be evaluated to determine whether some company should get an incentive

Committee: House Commerce

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• monitoring of conservatorship and guardianship, de facto custodian, C&G plans and reports, and the DE evaluation
• Evaluation Committee and with the courts to make sure everything migrated over that needed to be migrated
• Evaluation Committee and with the courts to make sure everything migrated over that needed to be migrated
• to 12, the petitioner might end up paying or covering all attorney's fees in addition to the DD evaluation
• very minor nomenclature things, but the protective provisions, the interrelations between the DD evaluation

Committee: Senate Judiciary and Rules

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That among other things require the commission to study and evaluate the technical and economic feasibility
• Radian Industries has partnered with the Air Force evaluating Hill Air-force bases suitability for Michael
• They're now planning to issue the final safety evaluation and environmental impact statement by the end
• Well, I thought the design was still going through evaluation by the NRC has construction with it.
• But the another part of this with regard to natural gas, have we done any evaluation on modifying natural

Transcript Highlights:

• state park program, and it specifically tells the agency to adopt rules on the application and evaluation
• state park program, and it specifically tells the agency to adopt rules on the application and evaluation
• to adopt rules on the application agency to adopt rules on the application and<00:09:58.399><c> evaluation
• </c><00:09:59.120><c> procedures</c><00:09:59.839><c> involved</c><00:10:00.240><c> in</c> and evaluation
• procedures involved in and evaluation procedures involved in allowing<00:10:01.040><c> interested</c

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The JLCAR June meeting opened with the pledge, approval of the prior minutes, and adoption of the consent calendar after one Fish and Game item was pulled for separate consideration. The committee then reordered the regular calendar and postponed an HHS item at the agency’s request because work was still ongoing. The committee next considered OPLC item 2547, concerning amendments to licensure and discipline forms for regulated professions. Members raised concerns that the application was still too geared toward health professions and that renewal forms should be shorter, but the agency said it was moving toward a dynamic online form that would collapse irrelevant questions. The committee concluded the issue was more about agency operations than policy and adopted the rule. For DNCR item 2551, on rules for the Adopt-a-Park volunteer program, staff explained the agency had been operating the program under statute but had realized rules were required and had been using DOJ review in the meantime. Committee members noted the agency had not followed the rulemaking requirement but was now correcting it, and the rule was approved. Fish and Game item 2570, on electronic OHRV and snowmobile registration applications, drew discussion over whether the online process should be processed in five days to match mail-in applications or remain at ten days; the agency cited workload and file-transfer delays, and the committee adopted a conditional approval with an oral amendment leaving the ten-day timeframe in place for now. In other business, staff described a planned upgrade to the committee’s agency portal and database workflow, moving from email submissions to an online portal with better form validation and document upload features. Members supported the modernization and approved the manual change, with implementation expected after agency sign-up and training later in the summer.

Transcript Highlights:

• Impairment is shown to exist through objectively verifiable medical evaluation or testing.
• injury, disfigurement, or impairment, or is shown to exist through objectively verifiable medical evaluation
• An objectively verifiable medical evaluation, true?
• trying to understand is how much has the bar been raised to have an objectively verifiable medical evaluation
• into this loop of having their statements being somehow objectively verifiable through medical evaluation

Bills: SB1540 , SB2225 , SB2284 , SB2382 , SB2487 , SB2514 , SB2595 , SB2876 , SB2877 , SB3031 , SB2753 , HB45

Committee: Senate State Affairs

Keywords: election officials, confidentiality, personal information, government transparency, public safety, spirit beverages, alcoholic beverages, Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code, distribution, taxation, firearms, local regulation, archery equipment, weapons, voter registration, statewide list, county requirements, election integrity, computer services contracts, mental health

Transcript Highlights:

• the methodology for assessing the greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled and also evaluating
• They did run evaluations on a couple of spot projects.
• I want to express that he also looked at a Highway 5 project to take a look at that from the evaluation
• He also looked at as active Highway 5 project to take a look at that from the evaluation and see what
• . >> Chair, representatives, I'm not as stated before that we can implement this legislation and evaluate

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 748, a bill revising Minnesota’s transportation greenhouse gas and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impact assessment requirements for trunk highway projects. The chair first moved and adopted the A2 author’s amendment and then the A3 amendment, which was described as adding implementation time and project exemptions when federal dollars are available. The bill author explained that the measure responds to concerns from stakeholders that the current law can force costly mitigation, delay or stop safety and capacity projects, and create uncertainty because key implementation details are still being developed by a technical advisory committee. Testimony was split. County and city engineers, county commissioners, the Minnesota Transportation Alliance, and the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities generally supported the bill, arguing that the current requirements can add 20% to 40% or more to project costs, are difficult to administer, and could jeopardize critical safety improvements, congestion relief, and federal funding. They cited examples such as Scott County and Trunk Highway 65, and said VMT mitigation is especially hard to quantify and fund. Opponents, including Move Minnesota and Sierra Club, argued that safety and climate goals are not in conflict, that reducing driving can save lives and reduce pollution, and that the bill would weaken an important tool for cutting transportation emissions. Members also asked about how GHG and VMT are measured, whether the required assessment was ready, and who would be responsible for mitigation assets and costs. After discussion, the committee held a roll call vote. The bill, as amended, passed 8-7 and was moved to the General Register.

Transcript Highlights:

• Another item is legislation directing electric utilities to evaluate the cost and feasibility of installing
• And the utilities will continue to evaluate GETs projects in biennial transmission plans going forward
• The electric utilities that own significant transmission are required to incorporate and evaluate SGET
• The utilities will continue to evaluate GETs projects in biennial transmission plans going forward.
• And the utilities will continue to evaluate GETs projects in biennial transmission plans going forward

Committee: Senate Energy, Utilities, Environment, and Climate

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• “So this process sets up a way to enter into an evaluation process with both an operator and a landowner
• But if you do have a willing operator and a willing landowner, you can enter into this evaluation process
• There's a process when we use the evaluation process that everybody tests and then somewhat goes to C
• There's a process when we use the evaluation process that everybody tests and then somewhat goes to C
• Through the evaluation process, you're going to test and sample, and you're going to submit that data

Summary: The House Natural Resources Committee met on April 29, 2026, with a quorum present and took up several bills related to property rights, expropriation, renewable energy recycling, and local permitting. Representative Domangue first presented HCR 80 on private property rights, using it to highlight the 2025 landman code of conduct and the need for stronger guardrails in expropriation negotiations. She then deferred the resolution in order to allow Chairman Geymann to present HB 841, which was described as establishing a code of conduct for landmen and expropriation-related negotiations. The committee heard testimony and watched video examples from landowners describing intimidation, inadequate compensation offers, and the need for fair treatment. Amendments were adopted to broaden the bill to all certificate holders, prohibit threats about court costs and attorney fees, shorten response times, and add graduated fines and public posting for violations. HB 841 was reported favorably as amended, with no opposition cards recorded. The committee then considered HB 621 by Representative Coates, which would require recycling of decommissioned renewable energy infrastructure to the extent practical. After discussion with DEQ, the bill was amended to clarify that existing universal waste rules apply and to remove language that would have required the renewable facility owner to pay decommissioning costs in that section; the effective date was set for January 1, 2027. Testimony from renewable energy industry representatives supported the measure and explained that solar panels and related components can be recycled at high rates, with established markets for recovered materials. The committee adopted the amendments and reported HB 621 favorably. Next, Representative Jacob Landry presented HB 595, aimed at preventing local governments from unreasonably delaying or impeding energy projects through permit requirements, especially road permits affecting Haynesville Shale operations. After amendment, the bill required timely action on local road permits and deemed them approved if not acted on within 30 days. Supporters emphasized the economic importance of the Haynesville and the need for predictable permitting, while opponents argued the bill could further erode local authority, particularly regarding carbon capture and sequestration. The committee reported HB 595 favorably. Landry then presented HB 1191, creating a certificate of compliance process for oilfield and exploration and production sites to provide a cleaner path for cleanup, finality, and future investment. The bill drew technical and substantive amendments, including changes to definitions, confidentiality, and the role of DEQ; discussion continued over whether the bill should be deferred to allow more time to work through the remaining issues.