Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:10:02.160><c> in</c> uh this was also discussed in uh this was also discussed in spreadsheet<
• Member discussion to the... I recognize Vice Chair Coulter. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• /c><00:12:43.519><c> uh</c> further member discussion or uh further member discussion or uh questions
• Any other member questions or discussion? All right.
• We’ve been able to come together and have this open forum discussion.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We've not had any discussion.
• We've not had any discussion from the insurance department about it.
• Further discussion, Senator Klein. So, Mr.
• I know he's worked with the government of Casper for the discussion.
• Any further discussion? Further discussion? All right, we will proceed with the vote.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Industry and Business reconvened to work on House Bill 1584, which would create a new pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) regulatory structure within the Insurance Department. Insurance Commissioner John Godfrey and Deputy Commissioner John Arnold explained a revised set of amendments negotiated with Representative Casper and the North Dakota Pharmacists Association. They said the bill largely kept the House policy intact but added technical corrections, narrowed some references in Chapter 19-02, created a separate PBM licensing class, set a delayed effective date for licensing, and established emergency authority so the department could begin building the new division. They also described the proposal to fund the program through existing trust fund resources, PBM license fees, and a transfer of about $1.6 million from the prescription drug transparency program fund, while allowing the department flexibility to hire needed attorneys, pharmacists, and examiners. A major point of discussion was Section 10, which would have required the Attorney General to represent and bear costs for lawsuits related to the bill. Chief Deputy Attorney General Claire Ness said the language was too broad and would go beyond normal constitutional defense work, potentially obligating her office to cover all lawsuits against the commissioner or state under the section. Representative Casper said the intent was only to avoid the Insurance Department having to seek emergency funding for litigation, and both he and department officials said they were open to removing the section or narrowing it. After further discussion, the committee agreed to remove Section 10 from the amendments. The committee then voted 4-0 to adopt the amended amendment package, and then voted 4-0 to give House Bill 1584 a do pass recommendation as amended and refer it to Appropriations. Members noted the bill was still a work in progress, but said the revised version was intended to move the PBM regulation issue forward while continuing discussion in the appropriations process.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion?
• Any discussion? If not, recommendation. Any discussion?
• Any discussion?
• Any discussion? resolutions. Any discussion?
• Uh any discussion? Chair votes I. AEN. Uh any discussion? Chair votes I.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard several resolutions focused on agriculture, invasive species, biodiversity, and clean energy finance. STR 34/SR 20 asked Hawaii’s congressional delegation to urge USDA to address unequal treatment of Hawaii in exporting agricultural goods; the Department of Agriculture supported the measure. STR 41/SR 25 encouraged each county to develop its own biosecurity plan, with testimony from the Department of Agriculture, the Hawaii Invasive Species Council, and the Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species supporting county-level planning and coordination. Testifiers emphasized the importance of local response capacity for invasive species, while also noting that quarantine authority should remain at the state level; one witness requested an amendment to include possible legislative changes needed at the state and county levels. STR 110/SR 91 requested a study on the feasibility of a state green bond program, with support testimony submitted by Coalition Earth and no oral testimony from the energy office. Members asked questions about how county biosecurity plans would interface with existing state efforts, and witnesses described current interagency work and county response plans already being developed for species such as little fire ant, coconut rhinoceros beetle, and coqui frogs. The discussion also referenced a recent Oahu coqui detection on Sand Island and the need for flexible treatment options. For the green bond measure, members described it as a potential tool for renewable energy goals. No opposition testimony was presented on the measures discussed. On decision-making, the committees recommended passage of STR 34/SR 20 with technical non-substantive amendments, STR 41/SR 25 with the suggested amendment from CAPS, STR 56/SR 40 without amendment, and STR 110/SR 91 with technical non-substantive amendments. The recommendations were adopted by the committees, and the agenda concluded with adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, any questions or discussion? All right, any questions or discussion?
• Any discussion or questions?
• <00:43:01.599><c> or</c> discussion or discussion or questions<00:43:04.000><c> okay</c><00:43:04.160
• If not, any questions or discussion?
• discussion discussion members<01:04:22.799><c> okay</c><01:04:22.960><c> we'll</c><01:04:23.160><c>

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on SB 834, which would change restrictions on transfers of real property under chapter 201H, HRS, and was discussed in the context of Hawaiian homelands and HHFDC-funded projects. Supporters, including HHFDC, DHHL, and individual testifiers, said the bill would clarify that Hawaiian homelands should not be subject to the 201H buyback and appreciation restrictions, while preserving affordability requirements tied to federal mortgage and tax credit programs. HHFDC explained that the main concern was the buyback/share-appreciation provisions, especially for DHHL projects using LIHTC or similar financing, and said aligning the statute with DHHL’s program goals would not be a problem. Members questioned whether removing the restrictions could weaken affordability protections, and whether the state could still prioritize beneficiaries and workforce housing, but no vote was taken in the portion provided. The committee then took up SB 759, which would add the DHHL chairperson or designee to the HHFDC board of directors and adjust quorum requirements. DHHL and several supporters argued the measure would give Hawaiian Homes a seat at the table, improve access to HHFDC funding sources such as tax credits, private activity bonds, and revolving funds, and help leverage limited resources to reduce the Hawaiian Homes waitlist. One testifier supported the bill but urged safeguards to prevent favoritism or abuse of power, and another raised concerns about whether a DHHL representative would need to recuse from voting on projects involving DHHL. HHFDC testified that DHHL projects still must compete under the same criteria and set-asides as other applicants, and that the board already includes multiple public and executive representatives. Members pressed on whether DHHL could achieve the same informational goals without a voting seat, and whether the added board role would create leverage or conflicts. The DHHL witness said a nonvoting role could provide information, but a voting seat would be more useful for decision-making and advocacy. The discussion also covered DHHL’s use of LIHTC, rent-to-own models, transitional housing, and other layered financing, as well as the broader need to coordinate state housing resources. The transcript ends during continued questioning, with no final committee action or vote shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion?
• Any<00:03:35.120><c> discussion?</c> Any discussion? Any discussion?
• &gt;&gt; Any<00:09:42.480><c> discussion?</c> &gt;&gt; Any discussion? &gt;&gt; Any discussion?
• Any discussion?
• Any discussion?

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission met on June 9, 2026, with a quorum present and first elected David Nicholas as chair and Mike Soles as vice chair by acclamation. The commission then approved the prior meeting minutes and received staff reports, including March and April financial reports showing the office remained within budget. Staff also reported that the April filing cycle for employers and lobbyists had been completed and that the next reporting period would open September 1 and be due September 15. The commission approved a 2% cost-of-living adjustment for staff for fiscal years 2026-2027 and 2027-2028, consistent with the state budget. Staff also updated members on office space: the current lease, in place since 1995, is being extended for six months at the current rate while the office evaluates whether to renew or move to a larger space. Members discussed the need for a better work environment and a small conference room, and staff said they would keep the commission updated as the process develops. The commission then considered its annual recommended legislative changes to the LRC. Staff explained that the first three items were the same as last year’s recommendations and the fourth corrected a drafting issue where a confirming amendment had been missed. Members discussed the timing and usefulness of the recommendations, including a brief joke about hiring lobbyists, and then approved all four items for recommendation. Finally, the commission voted to enter executive session to discuss confidential complaints and, if necessary, informal opinions.

Transcript Highlights:

• See, no discussion.
• Any discussion? No. Thank you. Any further discussion?
• Any discussion? Mr.
• Any discussion? Mr.
• Any discussion? Okay. Any further discussion?

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor say aye. Okay, thank you.
• We had a very extensive discussion about wolves. I am an attorney.
• So we did have that discussion.
• Any other discussion on the motion? Senator Guthrie, well, Mr.
• Chairman, if I could continue discussion on the motion, that was my concern.

Summary: The committee heard three Idaho Department of Fish and Game rule dockets tied to the governor’s zero-based regulation process. The first docket updated licensing and tag rules, including a new non-resident draw framework for deer and elk, added turkey-related landowner hunt provisions, clarified disability certification and refunds, consolidated moved language, changed the acreage threshold for certain landowner hunts to 79 acres, and adjusted several controlled-hunt and special-tag provisions. The second docket was a repeal of a chapter that had been moved into the big game rules, and the committee approved both that repeal and the licensing docket without opposition. The bulk of the meeting focused on Docket 13-01-08-24-01, which revised big game hunting rules and included a major package of technology restrictions. Fish and Game staff explained that the changes came from a Hunting and Advanced Technology working group and public comment, and would prohibit or limit certain uses of smart optics, transmitting trail cameras, thermal imaging, night vision, drones, and aircraft in big game hunting, while carving out exceptions for some uses such as backcountry pilots and certain wolf-management activities. Staff also described related changes to archery, muzzleloader, electronic tagging, motorized hunting, bait, herd-health kill authorizations, and grizzly-bear bait reporting. Testimony was sharply divided: supporters said the rules protect fair chase, preserve hunting opportunity, and prevent technology from eroding hunting tradition; opponents argued the restrictions would hinder wolf control, create legal problems, and unfairly limit tools for predator hunters and landowners. After extensive testimony and questions, Senator Conowitz moved to adopt the big game docket except for the technology-related subsections on page 56, citing constitutional and statutory concerns. That substitute motion failed on a 4-5 roll call vote. The committee then voted on the full docket, but instead of taking final action, members ultimately moved to hold Docket 13-01-08-24-01 subject to call of the chair. The meeting ended without final approval or rejection of that docket.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion from members? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• </c> discussion. Any discussion from members? discussion. Any discussion from members?
• Any further discussion? >> Jar, any closing comments? >> Thank you. Any further discussion?
• Any further discussion? &gt;&gt; Thank you. Any further discussion?
• :19:11.280><c> encourage</c> appreciate the discussion and encourage appreciate the discussion and encourage

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Anyone else on discussion before I offer some comments and questions? Thank you.
• A motion to discuss.
• We have a motion from Representative Duncan, moving the amendment for discussion.
• I have discussion. Anyone else have discussion before I start on this amendment? You run? Okay.
• Discussion on H.B. 291. Representative Duncan. Thank you. Discussion on H.B. 291.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Anyone else on discussion before I offer some comments and questions? Thank you.
• And what this amendment does is it removes—oh, do we need to make a motion to discuss?
• We have a motion from Representative Duncan, moving the amendment for discussion. Great.
• I have discussion. Anyone else have discussion before I start on this motion? You run? Okay.
• Discussion on HB 291. Representative Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 108, which amends the Watershed District Act to fix a problem created by last year’s changes: appointed watershed district boards could not legally levy taxes, even though several districts already had mill levies. The sponsor and staff explained the bill would preserve the existing tax authority by tying it to the soil and water district responsible for the watershed district. There was no public opposition, and the committee voted do pass on HB 108 as amended. The committee then heard House Bill 154, a tax credit bill intended to decouple New Mexico’s Advanced Energy Equipment Tax Credit from changing federal definitions and to add fusion machines and related components to the state definition. Supporters from economic development, industry, utilities, and education argued the bill would provide certainty, attract advanced manufacturing, and help New Mexico compete for investment without changing the credit’s caps or fiscal impact. Members questioned why hydrogen, geothermal, and small modular reactors were not included; staff said those technologies were not in the federal definition and that adding them now could create unintended consequences. The committee voted do pass on HB 154, with one member voting reluctantly yes. House Bill 291, the Taxation and Revenue Department’s annual tax code cleanup bill, was then presented and amended twice. The first amendment preserved New Mexico’s independent definition of qualified research for the tech jobs and R&D credit. The second removed a proposed expansion of the film tax credit to certain tribal expenditures after concerns about fiscal impact; members discussed possible future approaches for tribal film activity and the film partner loophole. The bill also makes technical and policy changes including rounding certain payments to the nearest nickel, waiving interest when tax deadlines are extended for good cause, removing small late-filing penalties in some cases, allowing delinquent taxpayers to renew permits under installment agreements, intercepting excess delinquent property tax auction proceeds for other state tax debts, clarifying tobacco tax treatment for larger vape cartridges, and tightening film credit rules. After public opposition from business groups and discussion from members, the committee voted do pass on HB 291 as twice amended.

Transcript Highlights:

• With that, members, any discussion?
• </c> July 1st 3000 members any discussion July 1st 3000 members any discussion seeing<01:26:41.760><c
• Members, any discussion?
• Members, any discussion?
• Members, any discussion?

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Energy and Environmental Protection Committee met on February 13, 2025, after a brief recess for a concurrent hearing. The committee heard testimony on several measures, including HB 332 on recycling and lithium-ion batteries, HB 256 on environmental protection and federal air standards, HB 348 on single-use plastics in lodging establishments, HB 810 on noise pollution and helicopter-related civil actions, HB 505 on Red Hill coordination, HB 975 on carbon sequestration incentives, and HB 974 on utility financing and step-in agreements. Testimony was generally supportive on HB 256, HB 348, HB 505, HB 975, and HB 974, while HB 332 drew both support and opposition, including concerns from the Consumer Technology Association about battery recycling policy. On HB 975, OPSD supported the program but urged language to prevent use for carbon offsets, and the committee discussed how the program would be monitored and reimbursed. On HB 974, the chair summarized extensive amendments addressing reserve fees, revenue definitions, trust funds, default procedures, and customer credits, while noting the Consumer Advocate’s changed view that a reserve fee may not be constitutionally required. In decision making, the committee adopted amendments and recommended passage for HB 332, converting it into a working group to study recycling of small- and medium-format lithium-ion batteries, with members from state agencies and industry and a note that an appropriation may be needed. HB 256 was passed with amendments to clarify compliance with federal law unless standards become more stringent. HB 348, HB 810, and HB 505 were each passed as is. HB 975 was passed with amendments, including language to prevent use of the program for carbon offsets and a note that dollar amounts would be blanked out and addressed in the committee report. HB 974 was also passed with amendments after the committee reviewed the proposed changes and discussed the reserve fee issue. The committee additionally noted that HB 1476 had previously been deferred and would remain deferred, and the meeting concluded with adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will discuss that further at 3:30 today as well during our ending discussion as to some options that
• We will discuss that further at 3:30 today as well during our ending discussion as to some options that
• And so I think the discussion should be started here with the committee about how important this discussion
• In our earlier discussions and even questions at the end of our earlier discussions, some of the questions
• , discussion.

Summary: The committee opened its third interim meeting with roll call, approved the November 13, 2025 minutes, and the chair reviewed prior committee work, including a denied request for a fertilizer-capacity study and a planned later discussion of the Union Pacific/Norfolk Southern merger issue. Commissioner Doug Goring then presented Department of Agriculture updates on uncrewed aerial systems grants to detect noxious weeds, the state’s irrigation potential, the low-carbon fuels program for ethanol plants, the Environmental Impact Mitigation Fund, model zoning ordinances for animal feeding operations, and fertilizer production and supply in North Dakota. Members asked about funding sources, fertilizer storage and availability, natural gas and water needs for future fertilizer plants, and how the model zoning website would help counties and townships apply setback and odor tools. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on the Department of Water Resources’ economic analysis tool for water conveyance and flood-related projects. Dr. Dwayne Poole explained that the department is proposing changes to better account for end-of-useful-life conditions and updated hydrologic data, while still limiting the model to direct, demonstrable costs and benefits. He said the goal is to make the analysis more realistic and consistent without changing statute, and he provided examples of how project benefits could change as drains age or as rainfall and flood data evolve. Committee members and water-user representatives generally supported continued work on the proposal, while raising concerns about downstream impacts, closed-basin projects, and whether the changes would meaningfully affect project approvals. The committee then heard from John Paskowski, state engineer, on Devil’s Lake, the West End and East End outlets, and the Tolna Coulee control structure. He reviewed lake history, outlet capacities, sulfate and downstream flow limits, and explained that the control structure is intended to prevent a catastrophic uncontrolled release by slowing erosion and head cutting. Members asked about water quality trends, the length of the downstream flow constraint, and whether the Tolna Coulee area had been studied for possible natural overflow or silt buildup. The discussion emphasized ongoing flooding concerns, mitigation for affected landowners, and the need to balance outlet operations with downstream water quality and infrastructure protection.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will discuss that further at 3:30 today as well during our ending discussion as to some options that
• So I think the discussion should be started here with the committee about how important this discussion
• In our earlier discussions, I need— In our earlier discussions, and even questions at the end of our
• , discussion.
• Further discussion. And then, okay, further discussion. Representative Monson.

Summary: The committee met for its third interim meeting, approved the prior meeting minutes, and heard a series of statutory reports from the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Water Resources. Chair Hauck noted that Legislative Management had denied the committee’s earlier request for a fertilizer capacity study, and that the committee would also revisit the proposed Union Pacific/Norfolk Southern merger later in the day. Commissioner Doug Goring reported on several agriculture topics, including uncrewed aerial systems grants to detect noxious weeds, irrigation expansion potential, the low-carbon fuels program for ethanol plants, the Environmental Impact Mitigation Fund, model zoning ordinances for animal feeding operations, and fertilizer production and usage in North Dakota. He emphasized that fertilizer supply depends heavily on natural gas and water, that most nitrogen fertilizer is imported, and that large-scale fertilizer plants require very large capital investments. Members discussed fertilizer storage, natural gas pipeline capacity, water availability, and the role of state infrastructure in supporting value-added agriculture. A major portion of the meeting focused on the Department of Water Resources’ economic analysis tool for water conveyance and flood-related projects. Dr. Dwayne Poole explained that the tool was created under 2017 legislation to help evaluate projects expected to cost $1 million or more, and that the department is proposing adjustments to better account for end-of-useful-life conditions and changing hydrologic data. He said the changes would remain focused on direct, demonstrable costs and benefits, not indirect impacts, and would be implemented through guidance and operating procedures rather than statutory changes. Committee members and water users discussed whether the revisions would better reflect real-world conditions, including deferred maintenance, changing rainfall patterns, and downstream effects. A representative from the Water Resource District Association said the group was working with DWR and hoped to review test scenarios before the June meeting. The committee then received a detailed presentation on Devils Lake, its outlets, and the Tolna Coulee control structure. State Engineer John Paskowski reviewed lake history, outlet capacities, sulfate and downstream flow constraints, and the purpose of the Tolna Coulee structure in limiting head cutting and preventing uncontrolled downstream releases. Members questioned whether the structure was effectively a dam, whether the lake would naturally overflow without it, the last time the outlets ran, and whether water quality in Devils Lake has improved over time. Paskowski said the outlets last operated in August 2025, that sulfate levels still limit operations, and that the lake has freshened somewhat but not enough to eliminate water-quality concerns. The discussion also touched on whether water from flooded areas or closed-basin systems could be reused for irrigation, and on the broader implications of wet cycles, inundated land, and drainage management across the state.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:10:37.279><c> if</c> general assembly to uh to discuss if general assembly to uh to discuss if
• So there will today for discussion only.
• We all last year to discuss this bill.
• I I think the worth discussing.
• Uh, it is not often that we have an hour of discussion during session on a floor discussion only, but

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Discussion. All those in favor, please say I. Opposed, say no.
• </c><00:15:12.800><c> it</c> again, you know, you and I discussed it again, you know, you and I discussed
• </c> uh discussion uh discussion um<00:19:41.039><c> and</c><00:19:41.360><c> certainly</c><00:19:41.679
• Um uh has proven discussion and debate.
• Certainly, this legislature has been attempting to discuss this issue.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any further discussion?
• >> My district. >> Where that's a discussion I think it's a healthy discussion to have. >> Um, and uh
• >> My district. >> Where that's a discussion I think it's a healthy discussion to have. >> Um, and uh
• >> My district. >> Where that's a discussion I think it's a healthy discussion to have. >> Um, and uh
• </c> that and we just we discussed with them. that and we just we discussed with them.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The commission met to continue its study of the cost of special education, with the chair emphasizing that the group needs to narrow its focus over the coming year toward specific cost drivers, including the IEP process, Medicaid, charter schools, and EFAs. Members reviewed a draft first report due November 1 and agreed it would be a brief synopsis of prior meetings, with minutes attached. The September 30, 2025 minutes were amended to correct the number of federally funded department staff from 234 to 23, and to revise language about Senator Sullivan’s comments so they reflected concerns about IEP advocates and fees charged to families rather than support for the concept. The amended minutes were then approved unanimously, with abstentions noted for members who were absent. The main presentation focused on how special education costs are handled for students attending charter schools. The DOE representative said there are 804 students with disabilities in charter schools across 88 of the state’s 176 districts, and that the district of residence remains responsible for all services and costs. She explained that students must meet IDEA criteria through district evaluation and parent consent, and that services are determined through individual IEP meetings rather than by a blanket charter-school decision. Members asked how those costs are tracked, whether any students are merely “monitored,” and whether districts separately identify charter-school special education expenses; the answer was that most districts fold those costs into their overall special education budget, though some may break them out as a line item. The discussion then turned to transportation and mileage costs for staff providing services at charter schools. Testimony indicated that districts may use their own staff, contract staff, or contract with a charter school for certified services, and that travel costs are often either built into contracts or absorbed as part of staff time rather than separately reimbursed. Members questioned whether mileage is reimbursed when staff travel to distant charter schools and whether those costs can be isolated in district budgets; the response was that practices vary by district and are not usually broken out by special education function. Several members argued this makes it difficult to determine the true cost of delivering special education, especially given New Hampshire’s model in which the district of residence pays regardless of where the charter school is located. The chair noted the complexity of the system and compared it to the state’s separate tuition and transportation approach for career and technical education centers.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there discussion, Representative Steele? Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.
• Are there comments or discussion?
• Are there comments or discussion?
• Is there discussion, Representative Walsh? Thank you, Madam Chair.
• Is there a discussion? I would recommend a yes vote.

Summary: The committee met in executive session to consider Substitute Senate Bill 6076 and Senate Bill 6313. SB 6076 would make changes to the authority of consumer-owned utilities, especially public utility districts, to self-perform certain public works related to non-emitting and renewable resource generation projects. Members adopted Amendment Hatfield 208, described as a technical clarification limiting the self-performance authority to the specific work covered by the bill. The bill was then reported out of committee with a due pass as amended recommendation by a 16-0 vote, with three members excused. The committee then took up SB 6313, which creates a capital centennial stewardship account. Members adopted striking amendment H3738.1, which instead creates the account as a sub-account within the existing capital building construction account. Supporters said the change was a mechanical simplification that addressed concerns raised in testimony while preserving the bill’s fundraising and project purposes. After adopting the striker, the committee reported SB 6313 out with a due pass as amended recommendation by a 16-0 vote, with three members excused. The chair then closed the executive session, noted a possible final meeting block on March 11 if needed, and invited interim planning ideas from members. The meeting adjourned after thanks were given to staff and committee members.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any further discussion?
• Any discussions?
• Any discussions?
• Any discussions?
• Any discussion?

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion? I now have an amendment ending in 0.01H to offer.
• Any discussion? I now have an amendment ending in 0.02.
• Any discussion? Do you be sure we are not eliminating the sunset of this?
• So we could have discussion.
• Have discussion.

Summary: The House Ways and Means Committee met in executive session and first took up Senate Bill 994. Members adopted a House committee substitute and a related amendment that removed conflicting language and added a federal tax filing reference. The committee then voted the House committee substitute do pass on an 8-0 roll call, with one member absent. The committee next considered House Bill 2461, with discussion indicating the bill was being rolled together with related bills and that the amendment would extend, not eliminate, a sunset on a tax credit at a 50% level. After adopting the amendment and substitute language, the committee voted the House committee substitute do pass by a 6-2 vote. The transcript also notes procedural action to roll in other bill language before the final vote. In public hearing, the committee heard Senate Substitute for Senate Bill 1032, which would allow a one-time $2,400 state income tax deduction for each child born or adopted in the tax year beginning after January 1, 2027. Senator Moon described it as pro-family tax policy, and Missouri Right to Life testified in support, saying it would help families choose life and offset early child-rearing costs. Members questioned the policy rationale, whether the deduction should be refundable or recurring, and the estimated fiscal impact, but no vote was taken on the bill. The committee also heard House Bill 3329, which would repeal a long list of expired or unused tax credits and clean up outdated statutory language. Representative Thompson and the Department of Revenue supported the bill as a way to reduce administrative burden and eliminate obsolete credits from the books. No opposition testimony was offered, and the hearing concluded without further action before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any discussion? Any objections?
• If not, any discussion? Any objections?
• Is there any discussion? Senator Rhodess. >> Thank you, Mr. President.
• Any further discussion? &gt;&gt; Thank you. Any further discussion?
• Any further discussion? If &gt;&gt; So ordered. Any further discussion?

Bills: SB2347, SB2911, SB2033, SB2158, SB2993, SB2778, SB2672, SB2014, SB3144, SB3096, SB3097, SB2968, SB2363, SB3154, SB2400, SB3313, SB2896, SB3279, SB2614, SB2687, SB2754, SB2549, SB3325, SB2658, SB2659, SB2602, SB2611, SB2877, SB3063, SB2615, SB3232, SB2875, SB3272, SB2854, SB3203, SB2803, SB2804, SB3302, SB3229, SB2969, SB2412, SB2657, SB2880, SB2540, SB2414, SB3142, SB3202, SB2281, SB2852, SB2272, SB2479, SB2589, SB2936, SB2720, SB2730, SB2749, SB2688, SB2798, SB3040, SB3107, SB3010, SB3109, SB3140, SB3187, SB2057, SB2377, SB3048, SB3083, SB3182

Keywords: tenant rights, landlord obligations, housing crisis, eviction prevention, multilingual access, intoxicating liquor, direct shipment, breweries, distilleries, Hawaii, renewable energy, grid-ready homes, interconnection process, electric utility, energy independence, surcharge, customer access, energy storage, smart inverters, veterinary workforce