Transcript Highlights:

• Could I reserve my question until after the guests speak in case I have something for them? Sure.
• Could I reserve my question until after the guest speak in case I have something for them? Sure.

Bills: HR249, HR251, HB395, HB902, SB83, SB132, SB157, SB338, SB450, SB484, SB501, SB507

Keywords: artificial intelligence, AI, BESE, State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, content standards, K-12 education, public schools, curriculum, digital literacy, computer science, STEM, technology education, student privacy, ethical AI, workforce development, future-ready workforce, instructional resources, education policy, school standards, Louisiana education

Transcript Highlights:

• The budget is only balanced because of reliance on one-time resources like reserves.
• Like reserves. In other words, there is a structural deficit.

Summary: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 heard the Governor’s May Revision proposals for the judicial branch, the Board of State and Community Corrections, the Department of Justice, and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The Legislative Analyst’s Office opened with a warning that the state budget remains structurally imbalanced and urged the Legislature to avoid new ongoing spending unless offset by reductions elsewhere. In the judicial branch discussion, the Judicial Council highlighted language access funding, appellate court security, a backfill for the state court facilities construction fund, and an extension of the lactation room mandate; Finance supported most items but suggested reporting language on interpreter costs and reducing the General Fund backfill. Members raised concerns about judicial vacancies, long-term salary freezes, remote hearings, and the lack of progress on court staffing in some counties. For the Board of State and Community Corrections, the administration proposed $10 million one-time each for the Missing and Murdered Indigenous People grant program and a human trafficking vertical prosecution grant program. The LAO said both should be weighed against other priorities and suggested the Legislature consider whether the Tribal Nations Grant Fund could support MMIP work, while Finance said it preferred General Fund support and wanted more review before any fund swap. Members strongly supported MMIP funding and asked whether ongoing support would be considered. On the human trafficking grant, Finance said BSC was a good fit because of its grant administration experience and prior vertical prosecution work, while legislators asked why the program was not placed with the Office of Emergency Services as originally contemplated in prior legislation. The Department of Justice presented antitrust litigation funding, Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse staffing, completion of organized retail criminal enterprise cases, and trailer bill language for a continuous appropriation from the Victims of Consumer Fraud Restitution Fund. The LAO supported the antitrust account use but questioned the Unfair Competition Law Fund’s ability to cover the full request without General Fund repayment, and recommended against a continuous appropriation for the restitution fund in favor of a more limited mechanism with legislative oversight. Finance said the fund would remain solvent and defended the continuous appropriation as necessary to pay victims promptly. In the CDCR portion, the largest discussion centered on the Boston Consulting Group efficiency review and sharply reduced savings estimates; LAO said the department had not fully explained the proposed position eliminations or future $100 million savings target, while Finance said the work reflected deeper analysis and ongoing efforts to find savings. Members repeatedly pressed CDCR and Finance on the gap between earlier promised savings and the revised figures. CDCR also outlined population projections showing continued declines in prison and parole populations, while LAO again urged the state to close an additional prison to save ongoing costs. The department then walked through several May Revision items, including workers’ compensation funding, a Corcoran honor housing dorm, incarcerated firefighter pay implementation, an incarcerated menopause program, mental health receiver staffing, mental health resource teams and crisis intervention teams, medical classification staffing changes, and AI note-taking for the electronic health record. LAO generally recommended limiting-term funding and more reporting for many of these proposals, while Finance defended them as necessary ongoing investments or court-ordered obligations. Members questioned the cost of workers’ compensation, the need for more prison closures, the lack of funding for women’s facility violence prevention, and the timing and transparency of the BCG savings process. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• I reserve the right to after the public hearing. Representative Bracy: Thank you.
• I reserve the right to after the public hearing. Mr. Pro Tem: Thank you, Representative.

Bills: HB1

Keywords: HB1, Alabama, elections, primary election, special primary, runoff, congressional districts, redistricting, reapportionment, district boundaries, federal court, injunction, judgment, Governor proclamation, nominee certification, party nominee, general election 2026, election calendar, voting rights, congressional race

Transcript Highlights:

• The Constitution in full without reservation.
• colleagues on the other side of the aisle because I know there are members over there who have reservations

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituted with House Bill 1D, both establishing Florida’s congressional districts. The sponsor, Senator Gates, explained that the Governor had transmitted a proposed redistricting plan on short notice and argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is legally permissible, citing population growth and the Governor’s view that race-based provisions in the Fair Districts Amendment are unconstitutional. He repeatedly said the Legislature was not being asked to prove the Governor’s legal theory, only to consider the proposal, and noted that no amendments were offered. A lengthy question-and-answer period followed, with senators raising concerns about the rushed process, lack of statewide public hearings, and the map’s effects on minority communities, compactness, communities of interest, and partisan fairness. Senators questioned whether the map cracked Latino and Black communities, whether partisan data was used, whether the Governor’s office had outside consultants, and whether the plan complied with the Florida Constitution, the Fair Districts Amendment, and the Voting Rights Act. Gates generally deferred on legal conclusions, said the Governor’s representatives had testified the map was race-neutral and used political data only as one factor, and emphasized that any constitutional challenge would be for the courts. After a motion to temporarily postpone failed by a recorded vote of 12 yeas to 23 nays, the Senate continued debate. Senators Rouson, Bernard, and others spoke in opposition, arguing the proposal was rushed, partisan, and harmful to communities of interest and minority voting power. Gates maintained that the Governor had a constitutional prerogative to propose the map and that the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend it. The House companion bill was then substituted for the Senate bill, read a third time, and the chamber moved into final debate on the congressional redistricting plan.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Constitution in full without reservation.
• colleagues on the other side of the aisle because I know there are members over there who have reservations

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D / House Bill 1D, which would establish Florida’s congressional districts. The sponsor, Sen. Gates, explained that the Governor had transmitted a redistricting plan two days earlier and argued that mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible, citing population growth and the Governor’s view that race-based districting is unconstitutional. Much of the floor time was spent in extended questioning about the process, the lack of public hearings compared with prior redistricting cycles, the use of population estimates from the Census/EDR/ACS, compactness scores, and whether the Governor’s office used partisan data or outside consultants. Gates repeatedly said he was relaying the Governor’s proposal and legal theory rather than offering his own legal opinion, and he said any constitutional challenge would be for the courts. A major portion of the debate focused on the U.S. Supreme Court’s newly issued Calais decision and its implications for the Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators questioned whether the decision struck down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, whether it affected Florida’s constitutional ban on partisan gerrymandering, and whether the Legislature should postpone action to review the ruling. A motion to temporarily postpone the bill failed by voice vote and then by recorded vote, 12 yeas to 23 nays. Senators also raised concerns that the proposed map cracked minority communities, including Latino and Black populations in Central Florida and Tampa Bay, and that it would produce a heavily Republican-leaning map despite the state’s voter registration mix. After debate on the Senate bill, the chamber substituted the identical House companion bill, read it a third time, and proceeded to final debate. Opponents argued the map was an illegal partisan gerrymander, was based on assumptions rather than verified data, and would likely lead to litigation. Supporters maintained that the Governor had authority to propose a congressional map, that the plan was race-neutral, and that the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend it. The transcript ends during continued debate on House Bill 1D, with no final vote shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Constitution in full without reservation.
• colleagues on the other side of the aisle because I know there are members over there who have reservations

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituting identical House Bill 1D, to establish Florida’s congressional districts. The opening prayer and Pledge of Allegiance were followed by procedural remarks, then extensive floor discussion focused almost entirely on the redistricting proposal, its timing, and its legal basis. Senator Gaetz, explaining the bill, said the Governor had transmitted the map two days earlier, argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is not prohibited by law, and said the Governor’s stated reasons were to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts. He also said the legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal. Much of the debate centered on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Louisiana decision and whether it affected Florida’s Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators Smith, Rouson, Sharief, Polsky, Arrington, Bracey Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and others questioned the short notice, lack of public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony, and whether the map diluted minority voting strength or fragmented communities of interest. Gaetz repeatedly said he was not offering legal opinions, that the Governor’s counsel believed the Fair Districts race-based provisions were inconsistent with federal law, and that any legal challenge would be for the courts. He also said the Governor’s mapmaker reported using census and demographic data, along with political data as one of many inputs, and claimed the map’s compactness was comparable to the current map. A motion by Senator Smith to temporarily postpone consideration of the bill failed on a 12-23 vote. After the Senate returned from a 30-minute break to review the new Supreme Court decision, debate continued. The chamber then substituted HB 1D for SB 8D, read the House bill, and advanced it to third reading. The transcript ends during debate on final passage, with Senators Rouson and Bernard speaking in opposition and arguing the map was procedurally rushed, legally vulnerable, and politically motivated.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Constitution in full without reservation.
• colleagues on the other side of the aisle because I know there are members over there who have reservations

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The Constitution in full, without reservation.
• colleagues on the other side of the aisle because I know there are members over there who have reservations

Summary: The Senate convened in special session with an opening prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then moved to the special order calendar to consider congressional redistricting legislation, beginning with Senate Bill 8D and then substituting the identical House Bill 1D. The bill would establish Florida’s congressional districts. Senator Gaetz, presenting the measure, said the Governor had proposed the map to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts, and argued that mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible and has occurred before in Florida and other states. He repeatedly said the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal, but that the Governor had the prerogative to propose it. The floor debate focused heavily on the legality and timing of the map, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Louisiana redistricting decision was announced during the session. Several senators, including Rouson, Sharief, Smith, Polsky, Arrington, Bracy Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and Berman, questioned whether the map complied with the Florida Constitution’s Fair Districts Amendment, the Voting Rights Act, and equal protection principles. They raised concerns about the short notice, lack of statewide public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony from the Governor’s representatives, the claimed severability of the Fair Districts Amendment, and the impact on minority communities and communities of interest. Gaetz generally declined to offer legal opinions, saying those issues would ultimately be for the courts, but he relayed the Governor’s position that race-based provisions in the Fair Districts Amendment are unconstitutional and that the proposed map is race-neutral and compact. Members also debated whether the map’s population data and compactness scores justified the district lines, with critics arguing that the plan cracked and split communities in places such as Central Florida, Tampa Bay, and South Florida. Gaetz said the Governor’s office relied on 2020 census data plus updated population estimates from the Office of Economic and Demographic Research and the American Community Survey, and that the mapmaker said he drew the map himself without outside consultants. After questions concluded, the Senate adopted a motion to substitute HB 1D for SB 8D, read the bill a third time, and proceeded to debate the House bill. The transcript ends during debate, with no final vote on passage shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• And if they do over-enroll, they could be left having to pull from reserves or take other measures to
• Inevitably, if they don't have locally available reserves or some other funding source, what they have

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And it is reserved exclusively for the five regional SBDC networks.
• Reserved exclusively for the five regional SBDC networks.

Summary: The subcommittee heard an informational update from the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development on the state’s Jobs First economic development strategy and related budget requests. Go-Biz described its regional planning process, priority sectors such as ag-tech, space defense, life sciences, and semiconductors, and requests including an extension of the CalCompetes tax credit, support for export promotion, additional film commission staff, innovation and emerging technology capacity, and a California brand campaign. Members questioned the campaign’s purpose, with some supporting efforts to counter misinformation about California and others warning it should not obscure regulatory and business-climate concerns. Go-Biz said the campaign would be nationally focused, could include business attraction efforts, and was intended to complement—not replace—policy work on permitting and workforce development. The item was informational only. The committee then heard from the California Office of the Small Business Advocate on the California RISE program, the Performing Arts Equitable Payroll Fund, and the Technical Assistance Program/Capital Infusion Program. CalOSBA reported that California RISE’s first round awarded $16.9 million to 61 employment social enterprises, which collectively increased revenue, secured contracts, and employed thousands of people facing barriers to work; a second round is being launched with a new administrator and expanded services. For the performing arts payroll fund, the office said all 100 awardees had been paid, but demand far exceeded available funding, and the program was oversubscribed within days. California for the Arts testified that the sector remains fragile after COVID and urged statutory changes to simplify eligibility and stretch dollars further. SBDC representatives described TAP/SIP as a statewide network supporting small businesses, capital access, and disaster recovery, emphasizing their role in underserved communities and the leverage of federal matching funds. Committee members focused on whether these programs produce durable outcomes and reach smaller or disadvantaged businesses. Questions centered on long-term job retention in California RISE, outreach to ethnic and community media in the civic media program, and whether TAP/SIP are accessible to entrepreneurs with limited capital or capacity. CalOSBA and its partners said they rely heavily on local community organizations for outreach, provide one-on-one counseling and training, and are working to collect more longitudinal data. The committee also discussed the film and television tax credit program, for which Go-Biz requested funding for three permanent positions and ongoing program support. Film Commission staff said the expanded program is tracking demographic and career-pathway data, with most productions opting into new diversity provisions, and that a formal report to the Legislature is expected in 2027. The item concluded without a vote, as the hearing was for oversight and budget discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• vaccination from the recommended list that they put out for all healthy students, and they have reserved
• vaccination from the recommended list that they put out for all healthy students, and they have reserved

Summary: The committee first heard HB 1079 by Rep. Boudreaux, which would allow charter schools to give enrollment preference to children who attended a licensed early learning center operated by the charter school or under an articulation agreement. An amendment expanded the preference to include children of active-duty military members, foster children, and children in court-ordered custody situations, and a second amendment clarified that the preference is permissive. Supporters said the bill would improve continuity from preschool to kindergarten and encourage more early learning centers. The committee adopted the amendments and reported HB 1079 as amended. The committee then took up HB 737 by Vice Chair Amedee, which would remove the state requirement that students show proof of meningococcal vaccination for school or post-secondary entry. The author argued the bill aligns state law with updated CDC guidance and preserves parental choice and physician consultation, while opponents, including pediatricians, public health advocates, and meningitis survivors, warned that removing the requirement would lower vaccination rates and increase the risk of severe illness or death. After extensive testimony and questions, the committee voted 4-8 against the motion to report the bill, so HB 737 failed. Next, the committee considered HB 628 by Rep. Landry, as substituted, to allow school boards and the Department of Education to work with licensed early learning centers to operate micro centers at schools, including dual licensing at one location. Supporters said it would expand access for three-year-olds, improve school readiness, and help families and the workforce. The substitute was adopted, and the bill was reported by substitute without objection. Finally, the committee heard HB 1008 by Rep. Owen, which would prohibit public post-secondary institutions from retaliating against faculty for disclosing certain violations or exercising academic freedom and free speech. The author and a professor witness said the bill would protect open inquiry and reduce self-censorship in higher education. The committee adopted two amendments to clarify academic freedom and tighten remedies; the transcript cuts off before any final vote on the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, as we have been utilizing reserves to the point that we no longer have one year of reserves available

Bills: HB414, HB786, HB1041, HB1052, HB1118, HB1139, HB1182, HB1185, HB1214, HB1217, HB1231, SR63, SCR27, SB5, SB194, SB415, SB433, SB451, SB462, SB516

Keywords: healthcare, criminal convictions, employment, background checks, prohibited offenses, Medicaid, claim payments, extrapolation, provider audits, medical freedom, discrimination, access, medical intervention, child protection, confidentiality, multidisciplinary teams, child advocacy centers, public records, investigations, hospital

Transcript Highlights:

• the polluters pay aspect of this, which is the money collected from the carbon auction ought to be reserved
• The money collected from the carbon auction ought to be reserved for actions that are doing that.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I didn't see anything within the regs themselves that looked like they were of concern or any reservations
• I didn't see anything within the regs themselves that looked like they were of concern or any reservations

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee first reviewed preferred administrative regulations and, hearing no concerns, considered them reviewed. It then took up House Bill 388, described as a Casper cleanup bill. The sponsor said it would exempt charitable health care providers from e-prescribing requirements, allow Casper data sharing with certain federal entities, update references to hydrocodone’s schedule status, clean up drafting errors, and clarify practitioner registration with Casper. The bill passed 9-0 and was then approved for consent. Next, House Bill 134 was presented as a follow-up to a prior study on shortages of sexual assault nurse examiners and SANE-ready hospitals. The sponsor and a representative from the Kentucky Association of Sexual Assault Programs said the bill would create a statewide SANE coordinator. The committee adopted a substitute, then passed the bill unanimously and sent it to consent. Senate Bill 147 was then heard as an administrative update to vital records, modernizing certified-copy requests, adjusting fees, and requiring the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to send the annual death report to the State Board of Elections by July 1 each year. It passed unanimously and was also moved to consent. House Bill 280, a Kentucky Board of Nursing cleanup bill, would let the board investigate out-of-state nurses applying for Kentucky licenses, clarify licensing language, and update school rescue medication provisions, including inhalers, nebulizers, glucagon, Solu-Cortef, and nasal epinephrine. A committee substitute narrowed the bill to glucagon updates, and one senator asked whether the bill also covered child care centers; the sponsor said it addressed school medications only but was open to further discussion. The bill passed 10-0 and was reported favorably. Finally, Senate Bill 77 drew extended testimony. The sponsor and supporters argued that ibogaine research and treatment could help address addiction, PTSD, and depression, citing studies, personal recovery stories, and a proposed public-private partnership funded through opioid settlement money. The committee substitute removed the bill’s appropriation request and emergency clause, and members asked questions about whether PTSD is an addiction, whether smoking was included, whether the bill was authorizing research rather than funding, and how the treatment works. The sponsor said the substitute was only creating a structure for research, not appropriating money, and supporters described ibogaine as a one-time, medically supervised treatment. The transcript cuts off before a final vote on Senate Bill 77 is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• The third portion of the morning hour is reserved for the announcement of member requests for legislation
• And the fourth and final portion of the morning hour is reserved for member requests for points of personal

Keywords: March 11, 2026 - Regular Session, 976, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'm really grateful for this amendment, and without reservation I will be voting yes on this.
• So I'm really grateful for this amendment, and without reservation I will be voting yes on this.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm going to reserve my right to go ahead and change my vote, but today I'm going to vote yes.
• So I'm not going to say the cliché reserve-my-right jargon, because everybody knows that, but we hear

Bills: HB2211, HB2229, HB2389, HB2403, HB2445, HB2502, HB2620, HB2813, HB2872, HB2889, HB2960, HB4028, HCR2007

Keywords: contractors, subcontractors, resident preference, public contracts, materials supply, Arizona Revised Statutes, local businesses, pregnancy resource center, pregnancy center, crisis pregnancy center, DHS, Arizona Department of Health Services, state appropriation, general fund, nonprofit grant, women's health, maternal health, reproductive health, abortion funding, pro-life

Transcript Highlights:

• So for now, I'm going to be a no and reserve my right to change my vote on the floor.
• And reserve my right to change my vote on the floor.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• up to testify, but unfortunately we have run out of time for this segment because I still need to reserve
• 33.040><c> to</c> for this segment because I still need to for this segment because I still need to reserve

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Health Services met with a quorum and first moved through administrative regulations without comment. The committee then heard Senate Bill 56, sponsored by Senator Gerald Neal, which would require Medicaid and its managed care entities to treat non-opioid pain medications on equal footing with opioid analgesics by prohibiting more restrictive coverage controls, prior authorization, or step therapy for non-opioids. Neal argued the bill would improve access to safer pain treatment options and reduce the risk of opioid use disorder, and Billy O'Brien of Young People in Recovery testified in support, describing personal experiences where non-opioid options were difficult to obtain despite a desire to avoid opioids. After discussion, the bill received a motion and second and passed the committee on a 10-0 vote. The committee then took up Senate Bill 72, sponsored by Senator Don Douglas and presented with Greg Chaffin of Alliance Defending Freedom. Douglas described the bill as a provider recruitment and retention measure intended to protect health care workers from being compelled to act against their conscience and to address workforce shortages and pressure in health care settings. He said the bill would protect individual beliefs while maintaining professionalism. A large number of witnesses then testified, and the chair limited public comments to two minutes each because of the number of speakers and the controversy surrounding the bill. Most public testimony opposed SB 72. Speakers including representatives of the Kentucky Council of Churches, a psychologist, an ordained minister and nurse, a nurse practitioner, and an ACLU policy strategist argued the bill was overly broad, could allow refusals of care by a wide range of health care workers, and could delay or deny treatment, especially for vulnerable patients and in rural or emergency settings. Several cited concerns about discrimination, patient safety, and the lack of adequate protections for patients. One witness recounted the death of an 18-year-old pregnant patient as an example of the harm that can result from delayed care. The transcript ends during additional testimony on SB 72, before any committee vote or final action on that bill is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• And she's very reserved. She doesn't want to talk. And she's very reserved.

Summary: The subcommittee first took up HB 339, which would create liability for vaccine manufacturers that advertise in Florida and require them to stand behind their products if consumers are harmed. The sponsor argued the bill is meant to restore trust in vaccines, improve informed consent, and address inadequate federal vaccine-injury compensation systems; he said he was open to amendments and noted the bill was modeled on Texas law. Opponents, including a former vaccine-court official, a Florida Justice Reform Institute representative, and a physician, argued the bill is preempted by federal law, raises First Amendment concerns, is vague, and is unnecessary because existing federal compensation programs already provide a remedy. After an amendment delaying the effective date by three months was adopted, the committee heard extensive public testimony, mostly opposed, and then approved HB 339 as amended by a 12-4 vote. The committee then began HB 1001, a strike-all on official actions of local governments that would bar counties and municipalities from official DEI-related actions and spending, define DEI and related terms, add enforcement provisions, and include broad exceptions for holidays, observances, and certain content-neutral civic events. The sponsor said the measure is intended to curb what he described as divisive and wasteful DEI activity in local government while preserving compliance with anti-discrimination laws and other listed exceptions. Members questioned the lack of definitions for terms like “preferential treatment” and the bill’s possible effects on local festivals, language-access services, Pride events, memorials, and community programs; the sponsor said some concerns were addressed by exceptions and that he was open to further changes. Public testimony was overwhelmingly opposed, with speakers warning of overbreadth, preemption, frivolous lawsuits, harm to local autonomy, and impacts on marginalized communities, while supporters said the bill would restore neutrality, accountability, and merit-based governance. The amendment to HB 1001 was adopted, and the committee continued hearing testimony and debate on the bill as amended.