Transcript Highlights:

• and private child- and youth-serving organizations who provide direct services under contractor agreement
• agencies that do many more services, not just those youth-centered services through contract or agreement
• it is only relating to the services that they're providing for children under those contractor agreements
• and private child- and youth-serving organizations who provide direct services under contractor agreement
• agencies that do many more services, not just those youth-centered services through contract or agreement

Committee: Senate Children and Family Law

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:47:35.280><c> was</c> federal full funding Grant agreement was federal full funding Grant agreement
• Cloud, all in agreement that we wanted rail.
• But I know that this is a very complicated set of agreements.
• But I know that this is a very complicated set of agreements.
• </c> within the parameters of the agreement within the parameters of the agreement right<01:21:52.600

Committee: House Transportation Finance and Policy

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• , House Bill 508, does one simple thing: it requires the cabinet to ensure that the standardized agreement
• cabinet to ensure that the requires the cabinet to ensure that the standardized<00:02:20.440><c> agreement
• </c><00:02:20.959><c> required</c><00:02:21.560><c> under</c> standardized agreement required under standardized
• agreement required under the<00:02:22.480><c> law</c><00:02:23.200><c> is</c><00:02:23.599><c> may</

Keywords: 00:00 Call to Order/Roll Call 00:56 Discussion of 25RS HB 508 03:15 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 508 04:08 Review of Referred Administrative Regulations 04:28 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Families and Children met and heard only House Bill 508, sponsored by Representative Jennifer Decker. Decker explained that the bill amends the child care assistance program created under House Bill 499 by requiring the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to make the standardized agreement available on its website and allow submission by email, mail, or an online portal, rather than limiting participants to the current process. A member asked whether the change would expand options beyond online-only submission, and Decker confirmed the bill was intended to address that issue. After discussion, the committee voted on House Bill 508 and passed it favorably by a 13-0 vote. The committee then briefly reviewed a referred administrative regulation; there were no comments or questions, and it was marked reviewed. The chair noted this would likely be the committee’s last meeting of the session, thanked staff for their work, and entertained a motion to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so we did agree to continue to meet through June to see if we could come to agreement on some additional
• That does not happen in the PCA program because of the collective bargaining agreement.
• The Commonwealth cannot violate the collective bargaining agreement.
• So at this point, once, so in the last collective bargaining agreement, there were a couple of things
• The other agreement that was part of the CBA was that there would be a $3.25 differential put in place

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The subcommittee met with MassHealth LTSS Chief Leslie Darcy to review the Personal Care Attendant (PCA) program and the legislative work group focused on its long-term sustainability and cost containment. Darcy and Charlie described the work group’s five meetings and three consensus recommendations: enforce the 66-hour overtime cap, address fraudulent activity in the PCA program, and eliminate MassHealth handling of PCA paperwork/administrative work for members without a live-in exemption because those members are subject to EVV. They explained EVV as an electronic visit verification system replacing paper timesheets, and noted the rollout is expected to be completed this fall. The group estimated about $7 million in savings from the consensus recommendations and agreed to continue meeting through June to consider additional ideas. Darcy presented data showing the PCA program served about 56,000 members in state fiscal year 2024 and has grown from $1.2 billion in FY20 to $1.6 billion in FY24, with projections near $2 billion by 2027. She said much of the growth is driven by wage increases and older adults using more services, and compared PCA costs with other LTSS programs. The discussion also covered overtime spending, the role of federal financial participation, and how Massachusetts’ PCA program differs from other states because it has no hard caps on hours or activities. Several members emphasized the program’s value for independent living and community participation, while also acknowledging the need to control growth without undermining services. Members asked about undocumented immigrants and MassHealth funding, and Darcy explained that some eligibility categories are state-funded only and do not receive federal matching funds. Another member asked about workforce recruitment and wage pressures; Darcy said recent collective bargaining agreements raised PCA wages, with some workers eventually reaching $25 per hour and the entry wage reaching $20. The group also discussed whether IADL hours are disproportionately high compared with ADL needs, and reviewed data suggesting potential savings if IADL hours were limited relative to ADL hours, though no consensus recommendation was made on that point. The meeting ended with approval of the prior minutes by roll call vote, an update that the next health equity informational hearing is scheduled for May 19, and a motion to adjourn carried unanimously.

Transcript Highlights:

• to establishing. and residency for children who are subject to parental child safety placement agreements
• bill relating to establishing residency for children who are the subject of parental child safety agreements
• agreements, which are short-term temporary placements of a child with a relative or fictive kin, to
• under a parental child safety placement and that the address of the child's residence during the agreement
• the Department of Family and Protective Services to include in parental child safety placement agreements

Bills: SB226 , SB413 , SB571 , SB1049 , SB2398 , SB2920

Committee: House Public Education

Keywords: residency, public schools, child safety placement, enrollment, education code, school boards, transparency, public meetings, attendance, recording, misconduct, child abuse, educators, investigation, criminal offense, education law, suspension, reporting requirements, released time, religious instruction

Transcript Highlights:

• We start to look at whether or not there are some areas of agreement. I view this as triage.
• In other words, we start to look at whether or not there are some areas of agreement.
• And I think it's much more effective to collect all of the agreements along the way so that at hearing
• And there are a lot of benefits to achieving an agreement.
• When we file nondisclosure agreements, that's it. We do not disclose that.

Summary: The joint committee met with a quorum present and first received an overview of its jurisdiction and duties related to appointing the Florida Public Counsel. Staff explained the committee’s authority under joint rules and state law, noted that the current Public Counsel’s term expires February 28, 2025, and that applications for the next four-year term were open with a February 6, 2025 deadline. The committee then heard an extensive update from Public Counsel Walt Truerweiler on the Office of Public Counsel’s work representing utility ratepayers before the Public Service Commission and in appeals. Truerweiler described the office’s caseload and priorities, including electric, gas, water, and wastewater rate cases; storm recovery dockets; cost-recovery clauses; rulemakings; and customer service hearings. He emphasized that the office seeks to challenge unsupported or imprudent costs, find value for customers, and use expert analysis and customer testimony to shape outcomes. He highlighted recent and ongoing matters, including major Duke, TECO, Sunshine water/wastewater, and hurricane recovery proceedings, and said the office had fully litigated four of its last five rate cases, while also achieving a major settlement in Duke that reduced a requested increase and imposed cost controls on solar projects. Members praised the office’s work and asked about the benefits of settlements, staffing and compensation, and how the office decides when to fully intervene versus provide guidance or monitor a case. Truerweiler said settlements can create predictability, reduce uncertainty and expense, and produce tangible value for both customers and utilities. He also acknowledged recruitment challenges, including lower pay than comparable agencies and difficulty attracting attorneys who do not want in-person litigation work. The committee took no substantive action beyond receiving the presentations, and adjourned after a motion was adopted.

Transcript Highlights:

• And again, we can see that workload expectations are rarely described in the negotiated agreement for
• Into the negotiated agreement, and oftentimes it gets shot down.
• And then, again, student and staff safety is addressed in the negotiated agreement; a large portion say
• agreement.
• The last question on this slide: paraprofessional management is described in the negotiated agreement

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee met to discuss special education funding and retention, beginning with approval of the prior meeting minutes and then hearing a presentation from North Dakota United on a statewide special education survey and retention rubric. Presenters described how the rubric and survey were developed from special educator input around four domains: paperwork and due process support, workload, student and staff safety, and paraprofessional management. They reported high levels of stress and burnout, including increased workload, difficulty taking prep and lunch time, concerns about mental health, and widespread difficulty filling special education positions. Committee members questioned the survey’s lack of a general-education comparison group, the interpretation of terms like “rarely” and “sometimes,” and whether results could be broken down further by district size, unit, or disability area. The survey results showed the weakest area was workload, with respondents reporting caseloads increasing without corresponding adjustments, little additional support or compensation when workloads rise, and few negotiated-agreement protections. Paperwork and due process also scored poorly, with many teachers saying they rarely receive dedicated time during the duty day, often work outside contract hours without compensation, and take work home on evenings and weekends. Student and staff safety scored somewhat better but still showed gaps in crisis follow-up, notification about violent behavior, protective gear, and leave options after incidents. Paraprofessional management also drew concern, especially low pay, insufficient staffing, limited administrative support, and the burden placed on teachers to supervise and train paras. Several teachers then testified directly about the practical impact of these issues. One special education teacher described the job as combining instruction, legal compliance, and paraprofessional supervision, often requiring work beyond contracted hours and contributing to burnout and turnover. Another testified that special education case managers are effectively doing three full-time jobs and that the paperwork and caseload demands are a major reason people avoid or leave the field. Committee members discussed whether the problems are primarily local or state-level, whether more funding would solve them, and whether changes to the funding formula or weighting for high-cost students might be needed. No formal vote or action was taken beyond a recess and return to order for the next presentation, which continued the discussion of possible special education study objectives and potential policy directions.

Transcript Highlights:

• In the process, North Dakota adjusted its legislation to provide for these agreements.
• No agreements have been made, so I'm not aware of any cost.
• But I'm not aware of any ramifications that would affect existing agreements because nothing has been
• The language that's there doesn't really even have anything that provides for agreements with Montana
• So you could sell a licensing agreement with DOD.

Committee: Joint Government Finance Committee

Summary: The committee first received a general fund and revenue update from the Office of Management and Budget. Staff reported that the state started the biennium about $176 million above prior estimates, but year-to-date revenues were now running below legislative forecast, mainly due to lower individual income tax and sales tax collections. The budget stabilization fund was above its cap, the legacy fund continued to grow, and oil revenues were slightly above forecast overall. Members also asked about federal funding uncertainty and mineral leasing variability, and OMB said agencies would be asked to address potential federal reductions case by case during budget preparation. The committee then reviewed compliance reports and trust fund analysis materials, followed by a bill draft for a fixed-route city transportation grant program. Testimony from transit officials in Fargo and Minot supported the proposal, saying state aid would help match federal transit funds and support operations, but members raised questions about the funding source, fare structures, and whether the program should be limited to the current four fixed-route cities or allow future eligible cities. Several members asked for more time to study the formula and possible funding options before moving the bill forward. Next, the committee approved a bill draft repealing obsolete language related to a proposed North Dakota-South Dakota bi-state authority. Staff explained the provision had been unused for about 30 years and that existing law likely already allowed joint powers agreements without the specific language. The committee voted to adopt the repeal bill draft. The Department of Commerce and the Northern Plains UAS Test Site then provided an update on uncrewed aircraft system initiatives, including the Vantis radar data enclave, the drone replacement program, and future revenue models. Officials said North Dakota had received FAA approval to operate the radar data pathfinder, had begun replacing non-compliant drones from restricted foreign sources, and was working on phased procurement and cost-recovery plans. Members asked about deadlines, funding, supply-chain issues, and how the system would be used; staff said the federal restrictions were already in effect and that Vantis was being positioned as infrastructure for future beyond-visual-line-of-sight operations. Finally, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation presented on the design of a new minimum-security prison and on a reentry housing task force. The new facility is planned for the penitentiary grounds, with a reduced estimated cost of about $263 million, 600 beds initially, possible expansion to 732 beds, and completion projected around 2031 if funded in 2027. The reentry housing task force described a data-driven effort to identify housing needs for people leaving incarceration, with the goal of reducing homelessness and recidivism through targeted housing support and possible subsidies. Members asked about staffing, site selection, housing duration, and whether employment and transportation needs would be included in the assessment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, members, Senate File 4548 relating to non-disclosure agreements.
• , but only for this very small agreement, but only for this very small sect?
• Either it's good to get rid of these agreements altogether or it's good to have them.
• Thank you. agreements altogether or it's good to agreements altogether or it's good to have<00:06:47.120
• I am assuming in contractual agreement.

Committee: Senate Judiciary and Public Safety

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• As you know, we are in a co-chairing agreement, and so we have co-chairs with me and Senator Pratt.
• It's been a pleasure working with you on this sharing agreement. Members, we have Mr. N and Mr.
• So with that, we'll just dive right in. agreement and uh members we have uh uh agreement and uh members
• </c> first um budget rules are an agreement first um budget rules are an agreement between<00:09:15.240
• that the rules themselves are agreement that the rules themselves are an<00:42:37.319><c> agreement<

Committee: Senate Finance

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In honor of the agreement, I would like to divide this amendment, please.
• on the agreement that has been reached on the OIG<00:21:17.360><c> bill.
• Chair, and I know this um again agreement was worked on by many people over a lot of time.
• or the interagency agreement?
• </c> hopefully in that inter agency agreement hopefully in that inter agency agreement that<00:59:14.559

Committee: House Ways and Means

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Jurisdiction to work out protocols for handling these cases by agreement, and those local agreements
• If there's not an agreement, does out.
• </c> there is not an agreement there is not an agreement um<01:09:53.520><c> within</c><01:09:53.920>
• Um, but you know, there's no agreement.
• In fact, I'm agreement among the judges.

Committee: House Judiciary

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:27:04.400><c> protection</c><00:27:04.880><c> from</c> bargaining agreements protection from
• </c> non-compete agreements, which are non-compete agreements, which are basically<01:24:13.480><c> promises
• </c><01:24:22.240><c> in</c> voiding those types of agreements in voiding those types of agreements in
• </c><01:24:50.920><c> is</c> leaves or that you know, agreement is leaves or that you know, agreement
• </c><01:26:23.600><c> A</c> uh canceling an agreement, right? A uh canceling an agreement, right?

Keywords: House streaming session for Friday, March 20, 2026, 957, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• work remotely under that agreement keeps that status in place.
• </c><04:29:00.560><c> Senator</c> these non-disclosure agreements.
• Senator these non-disclosure agreements.
• </c> is, as I understand it, any agreement is, as I understand it, any agreement before<04:36:47.520>
• </c> details, all of the proposed agreements details, all of the proposed agreements will<04:37:36.320

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• immediate solution for immigrants fleeing emergent crisis, whether that be ongoing armed conflict, environmental
• ongoing armed conflict, environmental disaster, or other extraordinary conditions.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Tuesday, June 30, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Within three years, energy savings and utility agreements are in place.
• We also need to consider the utility agreement process, and there are other matters that must go through
• Within three years, energy savings and utility agreements are in place.
• There is a utility agreement process. And then, if they are doing it, the municipality is involved.

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we have this transfer agreement, and that hospital that we foster that transfer agreement with is
• </c> fact there is a transfer agreement fact there is a transfer agreement process<01:33:18.719><c> uh
• partnership agreement that partnership agreement<01:33:29.840><c> is</c><01:33:29.960><c> not</c><01
• we Foster that transfer agreement that we Foster that transfer agreement with<01:35:00.719><c> is</c
• </c><01:48:08.599><c> that</c> if we can come up with an agreement that if we can come up with an agreement

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Can suggest that an agreement was made.
• As an example, the term tacit agreement, there's a lot of debate over what is a tacit agreement.
• As an example, the term tacit agreement, there's a lot of debate over what is a tacit agreement.
• </c><00:38:41.040><c> where</c> continuing to be in this agreement where continuing to be in this agreement
• </c><01:15:00.960><c> is</c> that the term tacit agreement is that the term tacit agreement is becoming

Bills: HB2611 , HB2102 , HB1710 , HB1868 , HB1920 , HB1812 , HB1733 , HB1715 , HB1723 , HB1724 , HB1727 , HB1711

Committee: House Housing

Keywords: HB2611, Hawaii antitrust, rental housing, rent price-fixing, algorithmic pricing, algorithmic rent-setting, property management software, pricing algorithms, rent coordination, price-fixing, collusion, cartel, multifamily housing, landlord software, occupancy levels, lease terms, Attorney General, public education program, consumer protection, housing affordability

Summary: The committee first took up HB 2611, which would prohibit algorithmic price-setting in Hawaii’s rental market, require public education by the Attorney General, and establish fines and penalties. The Department of the Attorney General opposed the bill, saying its language was too unclear and could expose landlords and agents to criminal and civil liability for ordinary rent-setting practices based on public information or assistance from property professionals. Members asked about antitrust standards, tacit agreement, and whether using county-published affordable-rent schedules would be unlawful; the AG said that would not be unlawful if based on public information and without collusion. Testimony was mixed, with the chair noting support from the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, Hawaii Realtors with comments, 50501 Hawaii and General Strike Hawaii, Haloha Project, 13 individuals, and one opponent. The committee then heard HB 2102, which clarifies that residential projects involving ground disturbance in high-risk areas remain subject to state historic preservation review and removes an exemption for lands presumed nominally sensitive. The Office of Planning and Sustainable Development and the Department of Planning and Permitting supported the measure, saying it would improve clarity and ensure review focuses on projects most likely to affect historic properties or iwi kupuna, while also urging language refinements to better define sensitive sandy-soil areas and balance preservation with housing timelines. NAP Hawaii opposed the bill, arguing it would undo progress made last session and that the current process already includes protections for inadvertent discoveries and efficiency for lower-risk areas. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs strongly supported HB 2102, explaining it was responding to beneficiary complaints about late-added language in last year’s law and saying the nominally sensitive-area language should be removed because it was adopted without sufficient stakeholder input and could be harmful to iwi kupuna protections. Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation and several individuals also supported the bill. Committee discussion focused on how “nominally sensitive” areas are determined, whether project proponents could self-certify areas as exempt, and how high-density residential projects should be treated; SHPD said it uses survey and monitoring data to map sensitivity, that highly sensitive areas like Kīauea are not nominally sensitive, and that some high-density projects should remain exempt if they do not involve new ground disturbance. The hearing included no final vote in the portion provided, but the chair noted 48 individuals in support and continued questioning on the bill’s definitions and implementation.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is really a pass-through mechanism from ratepayers to IPPs under power purchase agreements.
• </c> subject to terms of a step-in agreement subject to terms of a step-in agreement we<01:13:43.760>
• </c><01:13:58.880><c> Available</c><01:13:59.199><c> for</c><01:13:59.440><c> any</c> agreements.
• Available for any agreements. Thank you.
• </c> agreement, not made, but require them. agreement, not made, but require them.

Committee: Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint Senate committees heard HB 108 HD2, which would allow direct shipment of beer and distilled spirits by certain licensees and require liquor commissions to adopt rules. Most testimony came from craft brewers and distillers in support, who said the bill would help small and fragile producers reach customers, move limited or specialty products that wholesalers do not carry, and maintain relationships with visitors after they leave Hawaii. Supporters also argued that direct-to-consumer shipping would not meaningfully increase underage access because common carriers age-gate deliveries and require adult signatures, and that the measure would supplement rather than replace the three-tier system. Opposition came from the Hawaii Food Industry Association and the Hawaii Liquor Wholesalers Association, which said the bill could create problems with minor access and tax revenue and would allow out-of-state manufacturers to ship directly to Hawaii households. Supporters responded that similar concerns were raised when wine direct shipping was adopted and said the existing shipping and reporting systems can track and tax these sales. Several witnesses, including Maui Brewing, Ola Brew, Koloa Rum, Hana Rum, Koulana Rumworks, Koval Distillery, and the Brewers Association, described their small-batch operations, limited distribution options, and the potential for direct shipping to expand sales and jobs. Committee members questioned witnesses about underage access, tax collection, and the impact on the three-tier system. One witness discussed efforts to protect and potentially scale the Hawaiian spirit Okolehao through geographic and sourcing rules. The transcript does not show a final vote or disposition on HB 108 HD2 in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Moving on to our hearing, we have five issues on today's agenda. agreements, a more positive starting
• There is no agreement yet.
• We are hopeful to reach agreement, but that is what we had decided was the highest priority.
• Sixteen CSUs have agreements with 49 community colleges to offer concurrent nursing programs.
• The University of California Office of the President negotiates the labor agreements.

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education held its first 2026 hearing on higher education, focusing on UC and CSU system updates, student housing, enrollment, and core operations. In opening remarks, the chair noted recent state fiscal stress, the prior rejection of proposed UC/CSU cuts, and the Governor’s proposed 5% ongoing compact increases. UC President James B. Milliken and CSU Chancellor Mildred Garcia described the systems’ public value, research and workforce roles, and the impact of federal actions on grants, financial aid, and campus operations. Both also emphasized Title IX and civil rights efforts; CSU said it had implemented nearly all state auditor recommendations and was on track to finish the remaining one, while UC highlighted its systemwide civil rights and Title IX offices. Both leaders said federal investigations, grant cancellations, and litigation demands were consuming staff time and money, with UC reporting more than 200 grants lost or affected and CSU citing more than $161 million in lost grants and more than 1,600 grants affected overall. The committee then heard on student housing. Finance and LAO staff said the Governor’s budget made no major new housing proposal but continued support for the Higher Education Student Housing Grant Program. CSU reported 12 supported projects that will add about 5,047 beds, most below market rate, with four already open and seven more expected this year; it also said it has about 68,000 beds systemwide, a 92% occupancy rate, and ongoing emergency housing support. UC said the program has supported seven UC projects and two joint community college projects, adding more than 7,000 beds total, but nearly 10,000 UC students were on housing waitlists at the start of fall 2025. UC asked for additional state support, including possible bond funding and a statutory change to allow UC participation in public-private partnership housing projects. Members discussed rapid rehousing, student homelessness, faculty and staff housing, and community college housing partnerships, with both systems describing existing emergency beds and support services. On enrollment, LAO recommended maintaining UC’s 2026-27 resident undergraduate target, funding enrollment growth separately from base increases, pausing the nonresident reduction plan, and holding UC flat in 2027-28. For CSU, LAO recommended revising the 2026-27 target downward to reflect current projections, funding growth separately, and holding 2027-28 flat. CSU said it had rebounded from COVID declines, now exceeds its funded target by about 3,000 FTE, and is shifting about $89 million and 10,000 FTE spots from lower-demand campuses to higher-demand ones while developing turnaround plans for seven campuses with sustained enrollment declines, including Sonoma State. CSU also described direct admissions, transfer success pathways, and new degree programs aimed at workforce needs. UC said it had surpassed its compact enrollment goals, planned to add 2,721 California undergraduates in 2026-27, and was seeking $5.5 million for health professional programs. Members raised concerns about underprepared freshmen, K-12 alignment, nonresident caps at UC San Diego, deferred maintenance, ROTC access, and the need for stronger turnaround plans and teacher preparation pipelines. The final item on core operations addressed the Governor’s proposal to defer 3% base funding again, moving the one-time deferral to 2027-28 and allowing short-term zero-interest loans to cover it.