Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any discussion?
• If there's no further discussion on 1246, we'll go back to 1245.
• If there's no further discussion on 1246, we'll go back to 1245.
• Any further discussion on Standing Committee Report No. 1245?
• Any further discussion on Standing Committee Report No. 1261?

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's sort of getting back to the overall framework of the discussion.
• And so there'll be some ongoing discussions.
• You know, it's really around the funds and all these programs that we've discussed.
• We think we will benefit from more discussions.
• discussions in terms of if we were going to go that way.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion on the A2 amendment?
• That would be one piece of what was discussed.
• Another piece is discussed.
• :27.279><c> uh</c> seeing no further discussion, uh seeing no further discussion, uh Representative<00
• Prepared their amendments on this bill, knowing that it is for discussion.

Bills: HF3919 , HF3791 , HF1781 , HF3908 , HF4233 , HF3966 , HF3430

Committee: House Transportation Finance and Policy

Keywords: veterans benefits, Secret War, Laos veterans, eligibility process, burial fees, veteran designation, security, protective services, state officials, Capitol complex, state patrol, public safety, legislative protection, threat assessment, transportation, electronic attestation, traffic signals, accident reporting, legislative routes, agricultural aircraft

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion?
• Any<00:41:09.760><c> discussion?</c> Any discussion? Any discussion?
• 44:29.839><c> the</c> &gt;&gt; Any further discussion on the &gt;&gt; Any further discussion on the concurrence
• </c> discussion? Representative Andrew. discussion? Representative Andrew.
• Any members discussion on you, chairman. Any members discussion on the<01:18:33.120><c> concurrence?

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion? Seeing none, please call the roll. Any discussion?
• Any other discussion or questions?
• Any discussion? Representative Bush, thank you, Madam Chair.
• Any discussion? Yes. I have an amendment ending in 0.2H.
• She and I have discussed this language at length. And I have had discussions about knowingly.

Committee: House Health and Mental Health

Summary: The House Committee on Health and Mental Health met in executive session and advanced several bills. HB 1881 was voted do pass without discussion. HB 3010 was amended with a committee substitute that removed a subsection allowing payers to remove “gold carding” based on procedure volume changes, then passed 10-0. HB 2355, the “Food is Medicine” bill, received a committee amendment to align terminology with other partnerships and then passed 11-0. HB 1855, dealing with alpha-gal reporting, was substantially revised: the substitute narrowed the bill to alpha-gal, removed Lyme disease, changed a department duty from mandatory to discretionary in one section, and delayed reporting implementation; it then passed 14-0 after members discussed the need for better disease tracking and the department’s workload. The committee then heard testimony on HB 2034, which would require insurance coverage for activity-based prostheses, orthotics, and high-performance or mobility-supportive wheelchairs. Sponsor Representative Carolyn Caton said the bill is intended to cover devices that help people live, exercise, and avoid secondary health problems, while preserving prior authorization and medical-necessity review. Supporters included clinicians, parents, amputees, and athletes who described being denied running blades, water-safe prostheses, or durable wheelchairs and said the devices are essential for health, independence, mental well-being, and participation in school, work, and sports. Several witnesses said the bill would reduce long-term costs and reliance on charity. Opponents, including the Missouri Insurance Coalition and America’s Health Insurance Plans, argued the bill is an expansion of coverage with unclear definitions and potentially significant costs, especially for Medicaid and other state-regulated plans. They cited the fiscal note, warned about possible federal ACA rule changes that could shift costs to states, and questioned whether the bill’s language on Medicare supplemental coverage and “perceived disability” was workable or preempted. Committee members pressed both sides on cost savings, definitions of “normal” activity, and whether the bill could be narrowed or otherwise revised, and several said they were willing to keep working on the issue. The hearing on HB 2034 was left open and then recessed after testimony, with no vote taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Further discussion on the amendment to the amendment.
• Chair, thank you members for the discussions this afternoon.
• As a committee, we had a really good discussion about those things.
• Any further discussion?
• Thank you, members, for the discussion on this bill. I want to close.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> discussion in the briefing last week? discussion in the briefing last week?
• Any discussion, members? Discussion.
• Uh any discussion, members? agenda. Uh any discussion, members?
• Any discussion?<00:55:26.000><c> Okay.
• Members, any discussion?

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee heard and considered multiple gubernatorial nominations, beginning with several appointments to the Hawaii Hurricane Relief Fund board. Testimony on the Hurricane Relief Fund nominees was overwhelmingly in support from the DCCA Insurance Division, Hawaii Insurance Council, Hawaii Insurers Council, the Hawaii Hurricane Relief Fund, and various individuals and industry representatives. Nominees Michael Naka, Marie White, Raina Miamoto, Leslie Door, Edward Hike, and Gwen McDonald were discussed, with Miamoto and Hike offering brief remarks about the need to address hurricane insurance affordability, condo coverage, and the importance of attracting reinsurers. The committee spent substantial time questioning Hike about the fund’s strategy, including whether to keep eligibility broad in the first phase to move quickly into the reinsurance market, how much capital would be available, and whether later policy refinements such as owner-occupancy requirements could be added after an initial rollout. Hike said the fund intended to start with broad parameters to secure reinsurance and then consider more targeted changes later, and he indicated further responses to prior committee questions would be submitted later that day. No votes were taken during the excerpted discussion. The committee then moved to other nominations. Terresa Hernandez was considered for the Hawaii Board of Chiropractic, with support from the board, and she said chiropractic had been a passion for her for seven years. Terrence Aratani was considered for the Board of Nursing, with support from the Board of Nursing, Hawaii Primary Care Association, and others. During questioning, a senator raised concerns from constituents about a 2019 grant-related controversy involving a proposed resiliency hub project; Aratani responded that his organization had partnered on a grant-in-aid proposal, later withdrew when the project scope changed substantially, and said no money was transferred to the other group. Cheryl Schultz Hansen was also considered for the Board of Nursing and described her long nursing and teaching background, while a senator asked about alleged pressure on nurses to participate in employee give-back campaigns at Hawaii Pacific Health and the University of Hawaii; Hansen said the campaigns were voluntary and she was unaware of harassment, though she acknowledged managers may feel pressure to encourage participation. The excerpt ends before any final committee actions or votes on these nominations are announced.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so today is the beginning of the discussion. Not the end of the discussion.
• That's something we should be discussing.
• Yes, it was discussed in the agenda and we discussed it in the committee last year.
• I appreciate the discussion this morning.
• These are not abstract policy discussions for us.

Summary: The meeting began with a budget subcommittee hearing on a proposed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) tax credit trailer bill. Assembly Members Ávila Farías and another member spoke in support, emphasizing union jobs, refinery investments, and the need to decarbonize aviation. The Department of Finance said the Governor’s proposal would provide a $1 to $2 per gallon credit against the diesel excise tax for SAF sold in California from 2026 to 2036. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended rejecting the proposal, arguing it is a relatively expensive way to reduce emissions, has uncertain environmental benefits, could significantly reduce transportation revenues, and conflicts with the spirit of voter restrictions on transportation taxes. Committee members questioned whether the credit would mainly benefit out-of-state producers, whether firms would have diesel tax liability to use the credit, and whether the proposal would shift production away from renewable diesel and raise fuel prices. Administration and CARB staff said the credit is intended to support aviation decarbonization, preserve jobs, and help keep California on track toward its 2045 climate goals. LAO and UC Berkeley testimony countered that the policy could mostly subsidize existing technologies, that feedstock supply is limited, and that the net emissions benefit may be small relative to the cost. Members also asked about the effect on local streets and roads, SHOP, and trade corridor funding; Finance estimated a $165 million annual revenue impact would reduce those programs, while LAO said the reductions would mean fewer projects over time. No vote was taken, and the chair said the issue would remain open for further discussion. The committee then moved to a zero-emission vehicle incentive trailer bill proposing a one-time $200 million appropriation to CARB for a new point-of-sale incentive program focused on first-time buyers and leases of new and used light-duty ZEVs. Supporters said the program would help offset the loss of the federal EV tax credit, maintain momentum in California’s ZEV transition, and use a one-to-one match with participating automakers to double the state’s investment. LAO recommended rejection, saying the proposal does not meet the high budget bar this year, lacks enough program detail to evaluate, is unlikely to move sales significantly given the size of the appropriation, and could duplicate existing state and utility programs. Members asked about current incentives across light-, medium-, and heavy-duty sectors, the recent decline in ZEV sales, and whether the program would help lower-income buyers rather than subsidize purchases that would have happened anyway. CARB said the proposal is meant to fill a gap in the light-duty market, where sales fell sharply after the federal credit expired, and noted existing programs for other vehicle classes. The Department of Finance also addressed a separate question about the Motor Vehicle Account, saying a previously planned GGRF transfer was no longer needed because updated forecasts showed the fund had sufficient balances, though LAO said the account still has a structural long-term imbalance. The discussion ended before any vote or action on the ZEV proposal.

Transcript Highlights:

• Other questions or discussion to the A10?
• Um, I discussion about this earlier.
• </c><00:16:55.519><c> before</c> course, we've had the discussion before course, we've had the discussion
• </c><00:22:13.360><c> on</c> in having some ongoing discussions on in having some ongoing discussions
• Other discussion to the A20. All right.

Committee: Senate Elections

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 54.799><c> change</c> discussed every uh potential change discussed every uh potential change multiple
• :22.639><c> and</c> We discussed and considered and We discussed and considered and ultimately<00:04:
• But I would need some more discussion.
• </c> those any discussion on the amendment? those any discussion on the amendment?
• :31.760><c> the</c> appreciate the discussion and the appreciate the discussion and the movement<01:13

Bills: HF3131 , HF3436 , HF3106 , HF3241 , HF3531

Committee: House Transportation Finance and Policy

Keywords: cancer, disability, parking certificates, transportation, state law, school bus, schoolchildren, student safety, traffic safety, stop arm, flashing red lights, amber lights, passing a school bus, 20 feet, vehicle stopping distance, driver duties, school transportation, Minnesota traffic law, school bus law, bus stop signal

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion?
• Seeing no discussion, oh, I do see some discussion. I just, I'm sorry, to inquire.
• Any discussion? Please call the roll. That House Bill 1730 be voted due pass. Any discussion?
• I think we have a lot of discussions, and these committees are the first progress to discuss his bill
• This is the first step in this, having this discussion and continuing having these discussions so we

Committee: House Professional Registration and Licensing

Summary: The committee first met in executive session and adopted a House Committee Substitute for House Bill 2300 by a unanimous roll call vote of 18-0. The substitute combined a number of previously approved professional registration items, including emergency suspension authority, chiropractic and massage therapy provisions, accountant regulations, the athletic trainer compact, social worker regulations, a speech-language pathologist fix, telehealth, nonprofit pharmacies, and the physician assistant compact. Members noted that work was still ongoing on bell bondsman language before the committee moved into public hearing. The main public hearing was on House Bill 2897, which would expand optometrists’ authority to perform certain laser and in-office procedures. Representative Farnan and optometry supporters argued the bill is about patient access, especially in rural areas, and said it would allow three laser procedures—YAG capsulotomy, laser trabeculoplasty, and laser iridotomy—plus clarify other already-performed office procedures, while still excluding major surgeries such as cataract surgery, LASIK, and corneal transplants. Supporters said optometrists already receive relevant training, that a 32-hour certification course would serve as a safeguard, and that patients often face long waits or long travel times for care. Opponents, including ophthalmologists, argued the bill would blur the line between optometry and surgery, create safety risks, and rely on insufficient training and ambiguous language. They cited complications from laser procedures, questioned emergency care claims, and said optometrists should not be regulated as surgeons unless placed under the State Board of Healing Arts. No vote was taken on HB 2897, and the chair recessed the hearing for later continuation. The Committee on Elementary and Secondary Education then took up House Bill 3239 and adopted Amendment 0.01H, which capped the program at $4 million to keep it from becoming an open-ended cost. The committee then adopted the House Committee Substitute and voted the bill do pass by 11-7. The committee also combined House Bills 2913 and 3228 into one substitute and voted that combined measure do pass by 19-0. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 2195, which would create the Missouri Integrated Safe Driving Program and encourage school districts to incorporate driver-safety content into existing courses without adding a fiscal note or mandating a standalone driver’s ed class. Sponsor Representative Reedy and supporters from AAA Missouri and the Missouri Driver Education Coalition said the bill would address teen crash rates, improve access to driver education, and help schools use existing curriculum time more flexibly. The hearing remained in discussion with testimony continuing.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:02:39.560><c> or</c><00:02:39.680><c> debate</c> discussion or debate discussion or debate um<00:
• We'll now turn to the con side of this discussion here.
• Um, and then once we've concluded that, we'll consider amendments, have discussion.
• Is there any further discussion on the A1 amendment? Senator Westrom. Um, Mr.
• &gt;&gt; Is there any further discussion on the A1<01:30:19.560><c> amendment?

Committee: Senate Judiciary and Public Safety

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> think that uh we could have discussion think that uh we could have discussion with<00:25:30.640>
• </c><00:25:39.279><c> and</c> One thing that could be discussed and One thing that could be discussed
• </c><00:43:18.160><c> Discussion</c><00:43:18.720><c> on</c> uh go right to discussion.
• Discussion on uh go right to discussion. Discussion on the<00:43:19.119><c> bill.
• Uh, further discussion on the bill.

Bills: SF0025 , SF0027 , SF0043 , SF0066

Committee: Senate Travel, Recreation, Wildlife & Cultural Resources

Keywords: landowner licenses, hunting, wildlife management, quota hunt areas, game and fish commission, game management, hunting regulations, black bear, tracking dogs, wildlife conservation, conservation, contracting, supervisor, funding, districts, hunting licenses, donated licenses, life-threatening illness, vision impairment, nonprofit organizations

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> Any discussion on the amendment? Any discussion on the amendment?
• </c> &gt;&gt; Any other discussion? &gt;&gt; Any other discussion?
• Discussion on the Senator Case. Discussion on the amendment.
• I'm not sure if you discussed it. I was present for one of the discussions.
• I'm not sure if you discussed it. I was present for one of the discussions.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there anyone wishing to have discussion?
• It is fairly technical, so seeing no discussion, all in favor of the amendment say aye; opposed, nay.
• Is there anyone wishing to have discussion? It is fairly technical, so seeing no discussion...
• You're not things that you know that, you know, when we get to discussion on the bill, we'll probably
• If you want to talk about term limits for the legislature, I'm open to that discussion.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion on the bill? Move the bill. Thank you. Thank you for supporting this bill.
• Any discussion on the bill? Move the bill. Second. Thank you. All those in favor?
• Any discussion on the bill? Move the bill. Second. Thank you. All those in favor? Aye.
• Any discussion on the bill? So moved. So moved. Seconded. All those in favor say aye.
• Any discussion on the bill? Move the bill. Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye.

Committee: Senate Alcoholism And Substance Use Disorders

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Alcoholism and Substance Use Disorders met on April 29, 2026, with Senators Pete Harckham and Rob Rolison present and a quorum established through submitted vote sheets. The chair noted this could be one of the committee’s final meetings of the year and thanked members for their participation. Nine bills were on the agenda, all of which were moved and approved without recorded opposition. The committee advanced several addiction-treatment and recovery measures, including S-1817 on encouraging and facilitating clinical research into ibogaine for drug treatment, S-4747A creating an intensive addiction recovery and mental health integrated services pilot program, S-4948A providing reimbursement for non-medical transportation to peer support services, and S-59A creating a substance use disorder treatment bill of rights. Members also approved S-83A establishing the Individual Counseling for Integrated Care Rate Enhancement Act and S-7508, which requires health care professionals to prescribe opioids, sending those bills to Finance. The committee also approved education-focused bills: S-513 requiring schools to include instruction on preventing co-occurring disorders, S-5900 directing educational materials on prescription drug misuse in counties with the most prevalent opioid abuse, and S-9272 expanding opioid overdose prevention measures in certain settings. Most bills were reported either to Finance, Education, or the calendar, with no negative votes recorded on any measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion? I do have a question on this one.
• Any discussion? Moved by Senator D'Avanzo, seconded by Senator Harckham.
• Any discussion? Moved by Senator Addabbo, seconded by Senator Harckham.
• Any discussion? Moved by Senator Harckham, seconded by Senator Addabbo.
• Any discussion? Moved by Senator Addabbo, seconded by Senator Harckham.

Committee: Senate Insurance

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Insurance met on March 23, 2006, with Senator Jamaal Bailey presiding and several members present, including the ranking member and Senators Skoufis, Addabbo, Harckham, O'Mara, and later Ashby. The committee considered six bills. The first, S.34 (Ritter), relating to elevated lead levels screening, was moved and approved, with Senators Helming and O'Mara recorded without recommendation, and referred to the Finance Committee. The second, S.2648 (D'Avanzo), would require commercial insurance coverage for dental nightguards; members discussed whether it applied to standalone dental plans and who would bear the cost, and the bill was reported to the floor with Senators Helming and O'Mara without recommendation. The committee then approved S.3352 (Bailey), concerning electronic delivery under the Insurance Law and Vehicle and Traffic Law, and S.547 (Bailey), allowing reward or incentive programs for delivery drivers. Both were moved without substantive debate and reported to the floor. S.60122A (Bailey), permitting licensed insurance professionals to carry over up to five hours of continuing education credit between biennial licensing periods, was also approved and reported. The final bill, S.6551A (Bailey), expanding breast cancer screening coverage to include imaging, guide, and biopsies, was approved and referred to the Finance Committee. The meeting concluded after all agenda items were acted on.

Transcript Highlights:

• like to discuss in respective parties.
• And if we want to come back to discuss it together at 12:30.
• Folks would like to discuss in respective parties.
• Further discussion, Senator Wagner? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
• Thank you for the discussion. Thank you. Further discussion?

Summary: The Joint Administrative Rules Review Committee (JARC) met on July 31, 2026 to consider a citizen petition challenging the Washington State Charter School Commission’s April 2026 continuity of operations policy. Staff explained JARC’s authority under the Administrative Procedures Act and framed the issue as whether the Commission was using a policy in place of a rule, and whether that policy was within legislative intent. Staff also reviewed the Charter School Commission’s statutory framework, including limits on charter terms, transfer provisions involving the State Board of Education, and the Commission’s new process for identifying nonprofit operators to assume existing charter contracts when schools close or contracts are surrendered, revoked, or not renewed. The petitioner, Cesar Harrison, argued the Commission had created a new transfer mechanism through policy rather than rulemaking, potentially bypassing statutory procedures and extending charter authority beyond the five-year framework. Commission Executive Director Marcus Hardin responded that the policy was only a procedural framework for evaluating proposals, not a transfer of contracts or creation of new authority, and said the Commission had used similar discretionary processes before. Public testimony from the Washington Education Association supported the petition, emphasizing that the policy should have gone through formal rulemaking for transparency and public input. After discussion, committee members asked staff about the statute’s silence on contract continuation and the relationship between the Commission’s practice and legislative authorization. The committee then voted 7-0, with two members excused, to find that the Charter School Commission is using a policy or interpretive statement in place of a rule and that it is not within the intent of the Legislature as expressed by the statute. Staff explained that the finding will be sent to the agency, which must hold a hearing and then notify JARC of its intended action; JARC may later object to that action or take further steps. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Item F, discussion of Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia Arkansas State Plan.
• That's something that Les and I were discussing.
• We may have her discuss some of what they're doing at their new nursing school.
• That's something that Les and I were discussing.
• Representative Warren and I were discussing...

Committee: All ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE AND DEMENTIA ADVISORY COUNCIL

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion. Second. All right. Any discussion?
• “Any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor, let it be known by aye.”
• Any discussion on the motion? Do we have a second? I have a motion and a second.
• Any discussion?
• Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion, let it be known by aye. Any opposed?

Committee: All ALC-STATE INSURANCE PROGRAMS OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE

Keywords: 1204, all