Transcript Highlights:

• What was the last part of the question?
• Okay, for my own part, I just want to thank you as well.
• Okay, well, for my part, of course, Okay, well, for my part, I'm a co-author of this measure as well.
• So that's the hard part that's here.
• So that's the hard part that's here.

Summary: The committee heard SB 1135, which would reestablish the California Wildlife Coexistence Program to reduce human-wildlife conflict through nonlethal strategies such as deterrents, conflict reporting, and outreach. The author and supporters said the program had been effective but lost funding in 2024, and they argued it would help communities, ranchers, and wildlife by preventing conflicts before they escalate. Support came from conservation, animal welfare, local government, and county groups, while the California Cattlemen’s Association and California Farm Bureau opposed unless amended, saying the bill needed clearer limits on when nonlethal measures are practicable and protections so compensation funds for livestock losses are not reduced. Members discussed wolf-livestock conflicts, compensation, and the need for continued collaboration. The committee voted 2-0 on call to send the bill to Appropriations. The committee then heard SB 1085, which would preserve water supply assessments for large housing and development projects even when those projects are exempt from CEQA. The author and sponsor EBMUD said the bill is needed to keep water planning tied to land-use planning and avoid “paper water” problems, especially as climate and drought conditions worsen. Supporters included water agencies, environmental groups, labor, and local governments. The California Building Industry Association opposed the bill, arguing that current law already requires verified water supplies, that the bill could add unnecessary process and litigation risk, and that it could slow housing production. Members raised concerns about duplication in cities that also operate their own water systems, but the author said the goal was better coordination, not more bureaucracy. The committee voted 4-1 on call to send the bill to Local Government. The committee also heard SB 1270, which would expand the state wildfire mitigation home-hardening pilot to the top 10 counties by wildfire risk and social vulnerability, adding Riverside, Calaveras, Los Angeles, and Tehama counties and prioritizing future funds for those areas. The author said the bill responds to recent destructive fires and aims to extend home-hardening assistance to more high-risk communities. There was no opposition, and members discussed how to scale funding, whether the program should be broader than the listed counties, and how to focus on cost-effective mitigation. The committee voted 5-0 on call to send the bill to Emergency Management. Finally, the committee heard SB 895, a major science funding measure that would place a $23 billion bond on the ballot and create a California Foundation for Science and Health Research to support research in the state. The author and supporters said California’s research sector is a major economic engine and that federal funding cuts and instability threaten jobs, talent retention, and scientific progress. There was broad support from UC, CSU, labor, health, and research organizations, with no formal opposition. Some members raised concerns about the role of sponsoring unions and the potential for politicization, but the author said the new foundation would operate under California law and that the measure is meant to protect science funding and collaboration. The committee discussion continued, but the transcript excerpt ends before a final vote on SB 895.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, and that's, I think, part of my concern here, Mr.
• I believe that was part of the marketing plan, yes.
• Harris as the executive director of California, and these assets were part of that.
• The grant itself, which you were a part of. I understand the grant itself.
• The grant itself, which you were a part of, does it prohibit you from lobbying?

Summary: The follow-up informational hearing focused on the State Library’s oversight of the statewide Imagination Library and the Strong Reader Partnership (SRP), including how the original $68.2 million state investment was spent, why funds were not redirected sooner to the Dollywood Foundation, and whether spending complied with AB 157 and later SB 105. Committee members repeatedly raised concerns that SRP and the State Library had been slow to provide documents, that quarterly reporting and other contract requirements were not met on time, and that the State Library did not escalate issues earlier. State Librarian Greg Lucas said the library sent one demand letter, relied on counsel’s view that SRP could continue spending its $4.8 million so long as it furthered the program, and later redirected about $55 million to the Dollywood Foundation after paperwork was submitted. He also acknowledged the library should have shared SRP’s final report with the committee sooner and said the materials eventually received appeared satisfactory, though the chair and Senator Grove remained concerned that there was still no clear accounting of books delivered by SRP. A major portion of the hearing examined SRP’s expenditures and vendor contracts, including Shipyard for marketing and web services, SAGE Strategies for management consulting, Lotus Financial Solutions and other financial vendors, and United Way California Capital Region for a small marketing grant. Committee members questioned whether some spending, especially Changecraft’s work during the AB 157 period, amounted to lobbying or attempts to influence legislation, which the grant agreement prohibited. SRP representatives said the work was communications and stakeholder outreach, not lobbying, and that invoices reflected the board’s oversight and the nonprofit’s startup and closeout phases. They also said some work continued during the rescission and closeout period to unwind contracts and return funds, and that any reporting delays were due to transition, lack of a reporting mechanism from the State Library, and the need to collect records after vendors were canceled. Members of SRP said the nonprofit was created to build the infrastructure for a self-sustaining statewide program, expand local partnerships, and support multilingual outreach in underserved counties. They described a working board that met regularly, selected vendors collectively, and used multiple financial and administrative contractors to maintain checks and balances. However, committee members pressed them on the lack of detailed invoices, the absence of clear metrics showing how many books SRP actually delivered, and the limited apparent return on spending such as the $581,708 Shipyard contract, the $125,000 website work, and the $5,000 United Way grant. No formal vote or legislative action was taken during the hearing; it was an oversight session aimed at obtaining explanations and additional documentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so courts have articulated this state... ...are truly operating as part of a single business.
• The problem here in part is that the rest of the world doesn't use formulary apportionment.
• Both parts.
• Our members in every part of California are scraping by.
• I'm sure, well, we'll skip that part. The lucky part about going last, I got to redact a lot.

Summary: The joint informational hearing examined California’s taxation of multinational corporations, especially the Water’s Edge election versus worldwide combined reporting. Chairs opened by framing the issue as a review of whether current rules fairly and sufficiently tax foreign subsidiary income, given profit shifting concerns, budget pressures, and the long history since Water’s Edge was adopted in the 1980s. The first panel from the Legislative Analyst’s Office and Franchise Tax Board explained the mechanics of unitary taxation, apportionment, and the Water’s Edge election, and provided filing data showing Water’s Edge filers are a small share of returns but account for a large share of corporate tax liability. FTB witnesses said the agency already administers both methods and could handle a shift to mandatory worldwide reporting with education and outreach, though revenue estimates are difficult because foreign affiliate information is not directly available. Committee members asked about foreign government pushback, administrative burden, industries with more profit shifting, revenue uncertainty, and whether companies would leave California. LAO and FTB witnesses said pushback from foreign governments was plausible, but they did not expect major business flight because California’s tax is largely based on sales rather than physical presence. They also said worldwide reporting could reduce profit shifting but might increase revenue volatility and litigation risk. A second panel of academic and tax policy witnesses argued that Water’s Edge is a loophole that rewards aggressive tax planning, that worldwide combined reporting would better capture income tied to California, and that modern federal and international rules such as NCTI/GILTI, CAMT, and Pillar Two reduce compliance concerns and make a return to worldwide reporting more feasible. They also said California’s current system can create selection effects and may under-tax large multinationals. In the next panel, a California Budget and Policy Center witness urged eliminating the Water’s Edge election, calling it a costly loophole that benefits large global corporations over smaller domestic businesses and deprives the state of billions in revenue that could support health care and other services. A Silicon Valley Leadership Group witness gave historical context for why Water’s Edge was adopted and began outlining concerns about compliance, double taxation, and the risk of overreaching beyond income truly connected to California. No bill was voted on or advanced; the hearing was informational only, with members using the testimony to weigh the policy trade-offs and possible transition periods if the Legislature were to change the current rules.

Transcript Highlights:

• Are truly operating as part of a single business.
• And so when these unities are judged to be present, the state will treat them as part of a single unit
• The problem here, in part, is that the rest of the world doesn't use formulary apportionment.
• Our members in every part of California are scraping by.
• I'm sure, well, we'll skip that part. The lucky part about going last, I got to redact a lot.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I understand that part. A hospital owned and operated by a New Mexico resident...
• I understand that part.
• Well, that is part of the reason why we're... that's not the only reason.
• Well, that is part of the reason why we're... that's not the only reason.
• It says, and is not part of a hospital system defined as two or more hospitals.

Bills: HB99, HB49, HB164, SB30, SB43, SB50, SB136

Keywords: medical malpractice, malpractice reform, patient's compensation fund, PCF, health care liability, tort reform, damage caps, punitive damages, hospital liability, physician liability, nurse practitioner, certified nurse-midwife, outpatient facility, ambulatory surgical center, urgent care, free-standing emergency room, insurance surcharge, superintendent of insurance, New Mexico hospitals, medical review process

Transcript Highlights:

• So the part that I do agree with...
• And it wasn't just a listing of particular body parts.
• And it wasn't just a listing of particular body parts.
• I hear a few things in there to respond to, kind of a two- or three-part question.
• Chair, as pertains to individuals who are part of the LGBTQIA+ community.

Bills: S0484, S0698, S0706, S0968, S1118, S1122, S1134, S1320, S1342, S1548, S1614

Keywords: data centers, large load customer, large-scale data center, electric utility, public utility tariff, Florida Public Service Commission, FPSC, water permit, consumptive use permit, reclaimed water, groundwater, surface water, water management district, DEP, OPPAGA, economic development, land use, comprehensive plan, zoning, ratepayer protection

Summary: The committee heard several housing, local government, utility, and transparency bills. SB 1342 on transportation infrastructure and land development regulations, by Sen. Rouson, was presented as a housing-affordability measure modeled on the Live Local Act for transit corridors. After adopting an amendment that removed the bill’s compelling-governmental-interest language in enforcement provisions, the committee heard testimony from local-government and housing interests both supporting and opposing the bill’s zoning preemption approach. The bill was reported favorably. The committee also reported favorably CS/SB 1614, by Sen. Leek, which was amended to remove stormwater and code-enforcement spending provisions and to tighten restrictions on local governments seeking state appropriations after audits or without required affirmations. SB 1548, the next Live Local Act iteration by Sen. Claddie Ude, was also reported favorably; it expands where Live Local projects may be located and adds fair-housing protections. SB 968 on home backup power systems, by Sen. McLean, was reported favorably after testimony from builders and energy-related stakeholders, with the sponsor noting he was still working on amendments to refine permit provisions. The committee then approved CS/SB 698, by Sen. Martin, which allows building permits for single-family homes to be issued before septic permits are finalized if application has been made, while still requiring septic approval before occupancy. Builders testified that septic permit delays were causing lengthy project delays and contract cancellations. The committee also reported favorably SB 1320, by Sen. Martin, requiring county tax-increase referenda to include a Department of Financial Services spending analysis if available; the sponsor said the goal was to give voters more standardized fiscal information, while opponents argued existing law already provides similar transparency. SB 484, by Sen. Avila, on data centers, was reported favorably after an amendment adding a knowledge requirement to the foreign-country-of-concern service prohibition; the bill addresses local planning authority, nondisclosure agreements, utility tariff requirements, and water-use limits for large data centers. The committee also reported favorably SB 1118, by Sen. Avila, creating a one-year public-records exemption for data-center location and proprietary information, with testimony split between economic-development supporters and transparency concerns. Finally, the committee took up SB 706, by Sen. Mayfield, preempting naming of major commercial service airports to the state and designating Palm Beach International Airport as Donald J. Trump International Airport subject to federal and trademark conditions; it was reported favorably after questions about local input and airport naming. The committee then heard extensive public testimony on SB 1134, by Sen. Yarbrough, which would prohibit counties and municipalities from funding, promoting, or taking official actions related to DEI and would create penalties and a private right of action for residents. The sponsor argued the bill was aimed at preventing taxpayer-funded DEI programs and cited examples from Jacksonville and other jurisdictions; opponents said the bill was vague, overbroad, and would chill local programs, public education, and civil-rights-related activities. The transcript ends during continued public testimony on SB 1134, with no final committee action shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the part that I do agree with...
• And it wasn't just a listing of particular body parts.
• And it wasn't just a listing of particular body parts.
• I hear a few things in there to respond to, kind of a two- or three-part question.
• Chair, as pertains to individuals who are part of the LGBTQIA+ community.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Summary: The committee first postponed SB 1122, then took up SB 1342 on transportation infrastructure and land development regulations. Senator Rouson explained the bill as a housing-affordability measure modeled on the Live Local Act, aimed at reducing local land-use barriers near transit corridors. The committee adopted an amendment removing the compelling governmental interest standard from enforcement and litigation provisions, then approved the bill. Testimony included support from a county commissioner and concerns from the Florida League of Cities and a Republican executive committee about overriding local zoning and creating rigid standards near transit stops. Members then heard SB 1614, which would let local governments use excess Florida Building Code enforcement funds for stormwater repairs and restrict eligibility for certain state appropriations if a government has been audited or fails to affirm it has no excess funds. An amendment removed the stormwater and code-enforcement building provisions and tightened the appropriations restrictions; the bill was reported favorably. The committee also approved SB 1548, the next iteration of the Live Local Act, expanding qualifying projects on public land and near airports, limiting setback-based height restrictions, clarifying agricultural-use issues, and strengthening fair-housing protections. SB 968 on home backup power systems was also reported favorably, with the sponsor noting he was still working on amendments regarding permits for generators, windows, and doors. The committee next approved SB 698, allowing building permits for single-family homes to be issued after septic permit application rather than waiting for septic approval, with builders and industry representatives citing long delays and lost contracts. SB 1320, requiring county tax-referendum ballot questions to include a Department of Financial Services spending analysis if available, also passed after debate over whether it duplicated existing audit transparency requirements. SB 484 on large-scale data centers was reported favorably after an amendment added a knowledge requirement to the prohibition on service to certain foreign-country-linked customers; testimony focused on electricity costs, water use, NDAs, and ratepayer protections. SB 1118, creating a one-year public-records exemption for data-center site plans and proprietary information, was also approved despite concerns about secrecy and local officials appearing to conceal development plans. Finally, the committee took up SB 706, which preempts naming of major commercial service airports to the state and would rename Palm Beach International Airport as Donald J. Trump International Airport subject to federal and trademark approval; it was reported favorably after questions from members about local input. The last major item was SB 1134 on official actions of local government related to DEI, which drew extensive questioning and public testimony. The sponsor said the bill would bar counties and municipalities from funding, promoting, or staffing DEI offices or programs, with violations treated as misfeasance or malfeasance and enforceable by resident lawsuits; supporters framed it as a merit-based, anti-bureaucracy measure, while opponents argued it was vague, overbroad, and would chill civil-rights, health, education, and cultural programming. The transcript ends during public testimony on SB 1134, before any final action on that bill is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• And just wanted to end one part that another part of him that he just enjoyed so much.
• than the reading part.
• And also in the reading part of it, this one more than the reading part, they were concerned about how
• That is not part of the basic structure of this.
• And also, it's part of the acknowledgement.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So a lot of adult learners... ...and they can go part-time.
• And that's the part where we are a national leader.
• This is part of a multi-year effort that you all kicked off two years ago to This is part of a multi-year
• You'll see that's on the top part of this table.
• I believe that was part of the budget guideline process.

Bills: SB37, SB29

Keywords: high-quality literacy instruction, science of reading, structured literacy, reading instruction, literacy assessment, dyslexia screening, phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, biliteracy, English language learner, ELL, bilingual education, dual language program, reading intervention, reading difficulty, reading improvement plan, literacy coach

Transcript Highlights:

• Part of it is we have some new people on the JFAC committee.
• I'm trying, but this is such a huge part of the budget, Mr.
• We're also seeing less children... ...parts of the state.
• So that's outside of any part of my recommendation.
• Chair, I didn't hear the very first part of your question. I apologize.

Keywords: 989, all

Summary: The committee heard a lengthy presentation on the K-12 public school support budget, including how support units, career ladder funding, health insurance, discretionary funding, transportation, facilities, and the Public Education Stabilization Fund (PSIF) work. Legislative Services explained that FY 2026 support units were revised downward, creating a $22.3 million ongoing general fund reduction, and walked through the FY 2027 agency request and governor’s recommendation. The governor recommended no increase for population forecast adjustments, but did recommend some statutory and policy changes, including shifting certain interest earnings to the general fund and reducing funding for some virtual school and IDLA-related items. The agency request also included one-time proposals for a high-needs special education fund and a regional service model for related services. Members asked extensive questions about how career ladder dollars are distributed, how health insurance and discretionary funds interact, why the health insurance increase in the budget differed from current plan estimates, and how facilities money under House Bill 292 is used. There were also questions about the size and use of the Idaho Career Ready Students fund, the maintenance-of-effort implications of special education funding, and whether some special education costs are being used for student housing or other noninstructional expenses. The superintendent and budget staff emphasized that many of the budget lines are formula-driven or statutorily required, that local districts determine actual staffing and spending within those formulas, and that special education costs continue to outpace available funding. Superintendent Debbie Critchfield then framed the budget request around enrollment trends, shifting demographics, and the need for more flexibility in how districts use existing dollars. She highlighted proposed categorical flexibility for some funds, changes to digital content and curriculum distribution, continued literacy gains, growth in career technical education programs funded through Idaho Career Ready Students, and the importance of endowment and Millennium Fund support. She also described the special education proposals as a temporary bridge while the state considers larger formula changes and noted a near $100 million gap between special education spending and funding. She further outlined planned federal waiver requests on assessments and flexibility, and said the department is seeking more state control over testing and reporting requirements. The committee did not take final action on the budget during this portion of the meeting. Members raised concerns about interest transfers from dedicated funds, the complexity of the funding formula, special education accountability, and whether the state should revisit the overall school funding model. Several follow-up data requests were made, including information on health insurance participation, regional special education service needs, and school contingency fund balances.

Transcript Highlights:

• Part of it is we have some new people on the JFAC committee.
• I'm trying, but this is such a huge part of the budget, Mr.
• I'm trying, but this is such a huge part of the budget, Mr.
• We're also seeing less children... ...parts of the state.
• So that's outside of any part of my recommendation.

Summary: The committee received a detailed JFAC presentation on the K-12 public school support budget from Legislative Services analyst Kellan McGurkin, followed by testimony from Superintendent Debbie Critchfield. McGurkin reviewed how Idaho’s school funding formula works, including support units, staff allowance, career ladder salary funding, discretionary funding, health insurance, transportation, facilities, and the Public Education Stabilization Fund. He explained the FY 2026 revised budget, including a reduction in projected support units and an ongoing $22.3 million general fund rescission, and then walked through the FY 2027 request and the Governor’s recommendation. Major FY 2027 items included health insurance adjustments, transportation growth, federal fund authority, and proposed one-time special education initiatives: a $5 million high-needs fund and a $1 million regional service model, both tied to interest or transfers from other funds. The Governor also recommended eliminating or reducing some items, including virtual school-related payments and a reduction to Idaho Digital Learning Academy funding, which would lower the general fund request compared with the agency proposal. Critchfield framed the budget around enrollment trends, shifting student populations, and the need for flexibility in how districts use existing dollars. She highlighted gains in literacy, graduation rates, dual credit and career technical participation, and said the department wants more categorical flexibility for professional development, technology, and digital content funds so districts can redirect unused money to higher priorities such as literacy or special education. She also described the Idaho Career Ready Students grant as having created 170 new programs and said remaining funds are obligated. On special education, she said costs are growing faster than current funding and argued for a bridge solution while broader funding issues are addressed; she also said the department is pursuing a regional service-center model to help rural districts share hard-to-fill specialists. Critchfield additionally outlined planned federal waivers on assessments and flexibility, and said the state is seeking more control over education decisions. Committee members focused heavily on funding mechanics, especially whether career ladder and health insurance money is distributed per teacher or through support units, how discretionary funds are used, why insurance amounts in the budget book differed from current projections, and whether districts can use leftover health insurance dollars for other purposes. Members also questioned the proposed special education funding, the use of interest earnings from dedicated funds to support the general fund, the size and use of school contingency balances, and whether the state should revisit the funding formula itself. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting; the discussion remained in presentation and questioning, with several follow-up requests for data and clarification.

Transcript Highlights:

• the intoxicating part of the cannabis plant, which is marijuana.
• the intoxicating part, which is of the cannabis plant, which is marijuana. what Congress part, which
• I get that the intoxicating part and the derivative part of it, and I mean there are multiple plants
• I get that the intoxicating part and the derivative part of it and I mean there are multiple plants out
• However, when they passed that language, they inserted a part of the government.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the state and other parts of this country.
• of the training of these models, for that data to be a part of that data set.
• For example, there were some parts of the text that were being missed in the transcript.
• Those are different problems from the other patients in other parts of the world.
• Thank you so much for participating in this part of our discussion.

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Assembly Health and Privacy Committees focused on generative AI in health care, with opening remarks emphasizing both its potential to improve care and its risks around privacy, bias, liability, workforce impacts, and unequal access. Chair Bauer-Kahan and Chair Bonta framed the discussion around how California can encourage beneficial innovation while protecting patients, especially given the sensitivity of health data and the possibility that AI could worsen existing disparities if not carefully governed. The first panel featured representatives from Cedars-Sinai, Kaiser Permanente, Penguin AI, and Google, who described current uses of AI such as ambient clinical scribes, nursing documentation tools, imaging triage, maternal-fetal risk prediction, and administrative automation. Speakers said these tools can reduce clinician burden, improve patient experience, speed treatment, and in some cases improve outcomes, including a reported mortality benefit from a Kaiser predictive model and faster thrombectomy times at Cedars-Sinai. Members raised concerns about accuracy with accents and multilingual visits, whether predictive tools could reinforce bias or lead to more interventions such as C-sections, and how to ensure a human remains in the loop for important decisions. The second panel, including representatives from the California Health Care Foundation, UC Berkeley, and Stanford, focused on policy and governance challenges. Testimony highlighted examples of AI supporting homelessness outreach and community health work, but also warned that biased algorithms can encode inequities, especially when trained on data that reflect under-treatment of Black, rural, or low-income patients. Witnesses urged clearer standards for trustworthy AI, stronger monitoring and governance structures, better data access for accountability, and attention to the safety net’s limited resources. Several speakers argued that states should require health systems to have AI governance processes, clarify liability between developers and deployers, and regulate downstream uses of AI while preserving access to data for lifesaving research and oversight.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, part of the package. Yeah. Yes. Yep. Um, part of the package. Yeah.
• Your end part seems to be in the beginning of this sentence here when it excludes where industrial and
• um seems to be Um your um your end part um seems to be in<00:20:47.679><c> the</c><00:20:47.919><c>
• So, there are a subsection C part.
• </c> they're part of that overlay district. they're part of that overlay district.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• part of the 21st Century that we're not dealing with that are not a part of this particular bill.
• That's the part I'm missing.
• If it's in a facility, just part of it.
• of the... that I've not seen this as a part of the requirement.
• Let me tell you the other part of it... the other part of it is community service because right now,

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• THE SECOND PART WAS WHERE WE GOING FROM 1 TO 10 TO 1 TO 6.
• FROM THE SMILE ON YOUR FACE I KNOW WHAT THE NEXT PART IS GOING TO BE.
• THESE ARE NOT FAR FETCHED SCENARIOS, THEY ARE PART OF EVERYDAY LIFE.
• IT'S NOT PART OF THE RATE PEOPLE PAY FOR THE WATER. >> Sen.
• IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ADDRESS THE PLASTIC POLLUTION CRISIS ALLOW US TO DO OUR PART.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That's a big part of the ranking. Law school debt drives students to big law.
• Part of the conversation we have to have is: how do we make it affordable?
• They want to inspire kids from all districts, from all parts of the state.
• But as part of our interview process, we have an ethics hypo and a skills assessment.
• I don't recall this coming up in any committee I was a part of, so please forgive me.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'll just kind of move quickly through that part.
• Uh section two um through that part.
• I'll address that part. part. part.
• </c> unclear part unclear part &gt;&gt; chair<00:54:03.040><c> Scott</c> &gt;&gt; chair Scott &gt;&gt
• I think we've been kind unfairness part.

Bills: HF3676, HF2959, HF3233

Keywords: Safe at Home, address confidentiality, domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, harassment, victim privacy, survivor protection, confidential address, protected address, secret address, identity protection, residential confidentiality, program participant, nondiscrimination, court disclosure, protective order, service of process, driver's license, state ID

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, as you know, my name is Jamie and I live in Olivia, Minnesota, a rural part of central Minnesota.
• in helping other wants to do our part in helping other people. people. people.
• So part of the plea agreement, there is serve time and part of it is agreeing to pay the restitution,
• So it would not apply to part of MIR.
• As part of the release plan, DOC works on court-obligated payments.

Bills: HF2358, HF3496, HF3504, HF2169, HF3440

Keywords: public safety, coercion, criminal penalties, law enforcement, victim protection, HF3496, supervision abatement, earned compliance credit, earned compliance credits, conditional release, supervised release, corrections, Minnesota Department of Corrections, restitution, willful nonpayment, probation-like supervision, release supervision, community supervision, lifetime conditional release, early termination of supervision

Transcript Highlights:

• I want to switch to a separate part of you.
• These are two separate issues. parts of your bill.
• Caesar should have no part in your religion.
• That needs to be a part of our state law. Whether it's part of federal law or not doesn't matter.
• We should have it as part of this law because, again, this is our law.

Bills: SB263, SB370, SB663, SB924, SB987, SB1939, SB1937, SB1598, SB2798, SB2801, SB2580, SB2569, SB2514, SB2064, SB1940, SB1621, SB2601, SB1379, SB1376, SB1372, SB1353, SB2216, SB2166, SB2148, SB535, SB777, SB827, SB1141, SB1330, SB1352, SB1664, SB1612, SB1862, SB1936, SB1453, SB1448, SB1398, SB2137, SB2111, SB53, SB226, SB1677, SB1723, SB1839, SCR8, SB31, SB33, SB3, SB1405, SB1948, SB243, SB20, SB217, SB264, SB269, SB650, SB681, SB528, SB502, SB740, SB916, SB995, SB2581, SB3031, SB24, SB2570, SB1566, SB552, SJR1, SB646, SB379, SB1171, SB1121, SB1120, SB1061, SB1036, SB1019, SB890, SB11, SB868, SB1188, SB1254, SB2778, SB2543, SB2443, SB1333, SB1259, SB1401, SB1404, SB2139, SB2165, SB2237, SB2268, SB1202, SB1198, SB1212, SB1451, SB1470, SB1498, SB965, SB1547, SB1667, SB1818, SB1902, SB2129, SB2078, SB2069, SB1737, SB1589, SB1318, SB387, SB1150, SB1574, SB2127, SB3034, SB860, SB1278, SB263, SB370, SB663, SB924, SB987, SB1939, SB1937, SB1598, SB2798, SB2801, SB2580, SB2569, SB2514, SB2064, SB1940, SB1621, SB2601, SB1379, SB1376, SB1372, SB1353, SB2216, SB2166, SB2148, SB535, SB777, SB827, SB1141, SB1330, SB1352, SB1664, SB1612, SB1862, SB1936, SB1453, SB1448, SB1398, SB2137, SB2111, SB53, SB226, SB1677, SB1723, SB1839, SCR5, SCR32, SCR8, HB3228, HB2802, HB45, HB1318, HB5560, HB2894, HB4344, HB4238, HB2775, HB34, HB33, HB 12, HB148, HB 130, HB4273, HB4850, HB2733, HB4783, SB1833

Keywords: SB 263, Texas franchise tax, cost of goods sold, COGS, broadcasters, television broadcasting, radio broadcasting, media tax, broadcast license, FCC, 47 C.F.R. Part 73, 47 C.F.R. Part 74, film production, television production, tax deduction, margin tax, Texas Tax Code, depreciation, amortization, broadcast rights