Transcript Highlights:

• Any questions or discussion? No need, I think. Okay. Any questions or discussion before we vote?
• So I just put that out for your discussion this year. Thank you for that idea.
• And for these that are not subject to full review, we've had discussions about if very low value may
• Any other questions or discussion? Okay, seeing none, can we have a roll call voice vote, please?
• Any other questions or discussion? Okay, seeing none, let's have a voice vote on that.

Committee: Joint Citizen Commission for Performance Measurement of Tax Preferences

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there a discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.
• Is there discussion on that motion? Representative Haas. Thank you, Chairman.
• Sorry, is there a discussion on that motion? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
• So I would like to have a good discussion on that when we come back to hear this. Okay.
• Any further discussion on the motion? The motion is to introduce RS 33650.

Committee: House State Affairs

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any further discussion? Not seeing any. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.
• So we'll have our discussion, but you'll be the one who will make that decision, not us. Okay.
• for some of the reasons that you've already discussed.
• Any further discussion? Senator Cook.
• Any further discussion? Not seeing any. We’ll ask our secretary to do a roll call.

Committee: Senate Education

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 599, which would change the distribution of the Digital Content and Curriculum appropriation. Sponsors said the current first-come, first-served system exhausted the $1.6 million annual fund in minutes and left additional applications unfunded, so the bill would codify a needs-based rubric administered by the Department of Education. The proposal would prioritize districts serving economically disadvantaged, rural, or underserved students, projects tied to reading, math, or college and career readiness, alignment with improvement plans, strong implementation and evaluation, and applicants that did not receive prior funding. There was no public testimony, and the committee voted unanimously to send HB 599 to the floor with a due pass recommendation. The committee then took up House Bill 728, a broader rewrite of school funding definitions in Title 33. The sponsors said the bill was intended to clarify categories such as instructional staff, administrative staff, classified staff, and per-pupil staff, after an LSO review found a growing number of people being paid from instructional dollars even though they did not directly instruct students. They said the bill would create a new “instructional support staff” category for mentors, coaches, and similar roles, while preserving flexibility for rural districts and keeping current administrative flexibility language intact. Several senators questioned whether the bill would reclassify instructional coaches and mentors as administrators and whether that would affect funding or certification requirements. Public testimony on HB 728 was mixed. The Twin Falls superintendent said instructional coaches are essential in his district and asked that the bill be amended so those positions could still be funded through the instructional category. The Idaho Association of School Administrators opposed parts of the bill, saying the affected roles are instructional in nature and that the current funding formula does not leave room in the administrator allocation for additional positions. An instructional coach testified that coaches are not administrators and warned that reclassification could undermine trust with teachers. After debate, the sponsor asked that the bill be sent to the amending order with two proposed amendments, and the committee agreed by roll call vote. The committee also rejected a motion to hold the bill at the call of the chair. Before adjournment, the chair noted the committee had not finished its agenda and would meet again the following afternoon.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion?
• Any other discussion on the amendment?
• We had some good discussion on this, and I really appreciate Representative Caton’s discussion about
• So we had some good discussion on this, and I really appreciate Representative Caton’s discussion about
• Seeing no further discussion, thank you for your presentation.

Committee: House Joint Committee on Transportation Oversight

Summary: The Transportation Committee first met in executive session on House Bill 2741. Members adopted a committee amendment correcting a wording error, then voted the House committee substitute do pass by a roll call of 9 ayes, 2 noes, and 1 present. Supporters said the bill addressed safety concerns, especially for commercial vehicles, while opponents objected to the subjective standard for proving proficiency and to the $3,000 penalty for violations. The committee then held a public hearing on House Bills 1831, 2328, and 2553, all related to motorcycle passenger safety for children. The bills would require young child passengers to wear helmets, be able to reach foot pegs, and ride on properly equipped seats; the discussion also focused on whether officers could stop motorcycles based on a reasonable suspicion that a child passenger was underage or improperly secured. Bill sponsors said the measures were intended to prevent child deaths and injuries, citing the death of Calvin James, a 4-year-old grandson of one witness, as the reason for “Calvin’s Law.” Testimony was mixed. Family members and several supporters, including emergency nurses, argued the bills were common-sense child protection measures and could prevent traumatic brain injuries or fatalities. Motorcycle advocacy groups and some witnesses said the bills were overbroad, could lead to arbitrary stops or family services involvement, and needed clearer definitions for terms like “proper passenger seat.” Several members raised questions about enforceability, age verification, and whether the fine structure was an effective deterrent. No votes were taken on the three motorcycle bills, and the committee adjourned after closing the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any discussion? Any objections? If not, the motion is carried.
• If not, any discussion? Any objections?
• Is there any discussion? >> Senator Rhoads: Thank you, Mr. President.
• Mahalo. >> Is there any further discussion?
• </c> any discussion? Senator Rhodess. any discussion? Senator Rhodess.

Bills: SB2097 , SB2317 , SB2319 , SB2177 , SB2190 , SB2424 , SB2524 , SB2627 , SB3084 , SB895 , SB896 , SB3102 , SB3157 , SB3215 , SB2050 , SB2090 , SB2211 , SB2572 , SB2096 , SB2025 , SB2127 , SB2046 , SB2262 , SB2354 , SB2387 , SB2487 , SB2955 , SB3234 , SB2851 , SB2573 , SB2391 , SB3282 , SB3055 , SB2189 , SB2194 , SB3152 , SB2635 , SB888 , SB2203 , SCR1 , SCR2 , SCR3 , SCR4 , SCR5 , SCR6 , SCR7 , SCR8 , SCR9 , SCR10 , SCR11 , SCR12 , SCR13 , SCR14 , SCR15 , SCR16 , SCR17 , SCR18 , SCR19 , SCR20 , SCR21 , SCR22 , SR3 , SR5 , SR6 , SR7 , SR8 , SR9 , SR10 , SR11 , SR12 , SR13 , SR14 , SR15 , SR16 , SR17 , SR18 , SR19 , SB2010 , SB3118 , SB3276

Keywords: sustainable agriculture, climate adaptation, food system resilience, grant program, Hawaii agriculture, agriculture, insurance, small producers, state support, biosecurity, farm coverage, public-private partnerships, agricultural policy, grant funding, food security, climate resiliency, housing development, zoning exemption, government assistance, affordable housing

Transcript Highlights:

• and a do pass on the Senate Rules Committee substitute for Senate Bill 238 for the purposes of discussion
• put We're going to have that discussion as we go through the transition.
• And I would do the same, I think, in Senator Townsend's discussion, that that is part of...
• I think in Senator Townsend's discussion, that is part of this process.
• Maybe that's a discussion that will happen here.

Bills: SB238 , HJR1 , SM21 , SM22

Committee: Senate House Rules & Order Of Business

Keywords: Governor's Residence, management committee, government administration, New Mexico, advisory, commission, general services, nominating committees, boards of regents, student representation, political party registration, New Mexico constitution, overdose prevention centers, harm reduction, drug overdose, opioid crisis, substance use disorder, public health, addiction treatment, naloxone

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 238, which would rename the governor’s residence advisory commission as a governor’s residence management committee and clarify its duties, membership, and authority over furnishings, maintenance, inventories, and hospitality functions at the governor’s residence. Senator Worth and Secretary Designate Anna Silva said the change was needed to remove ambiguity during the transition to a new administration and to improve transparency around the residence, the General Services Department fund, and the separate Mansion Foundation fundraising role. Several senators questioned whether the bill concentrated too much authority in the governor and whether it could enable a large renovation project without sufficient legislative oversight; supporters said major renovations would still require legislative appropriations. The committee ultimately advanced the Senate Rules Committee substitute for SB 238 on a 5-2 vote. The committee then approved House Joint Resolution 1, which would create bipartisan nominating commissions to vet and recommend university and special school regents to the governor, rather than leaving appointments entirely to the governor’s discretion. Senator Steinborn said the resolution would improve qualifications and reduce conflicts of interest, including by changing the student regent selection process. After brief discussion about party-affiliation restrictions, the resolution received a due pass with no objection. Two memorials followed. Senate Memorial 21, presented by Senator Stephanics for Senator Bergman, calls for a Department of Health study of overdose prevention tools, including overdose prevention centers and other harm-reduction strategies, in response to New Mexico’s high and rising overdose death rates. Supporters cited rural access challenges and the need to explore all available tools; one senator asked for more accurate county and demographic data in the memorial’s background. The committee gave SM 21 a due pass. Senate Memorial 22, presented by Senator Charlie and the New Mexico Coalition Against Domestic Violence, asks the Legislative Finance Committee to convene a working group to map how domestic-violence funding flows through CYFD and related agencies, with an emphasis on transparency, accountability, and provider input. Witnesses said funding streams are fragmented and sometimes unclear, and senators discussed whether the work should remain within CYFD or be overseen elsewhere. The committee also gave SM 22 a due pass. The chair then announced that the committee would hear SB 264 and SB 261 at its next meeting and recessed.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to have the discussion.
• That's better held for a 60-day session, but we can certainly begin with discussion now.
• And so we're going to have the discussion.
• That's better held for a 60-day session, but we can certainly begin with discussion now.
• We've had this discussion in this committee for many years.

Bills: SR1 , SM1 , SM6

Committee: Senate Senate Rules

Keywords: alcohol consumption, Senate rules, legislative conduct, ethics, New Mexico Senate, redistricting, gerrymandering, election integrity, Congress, voter rights, political polarization, Nancy Lopez, Roswell bypass, US Highway 285, U.S. Highway 285, Highway 285 bypass, road naming, highway naming, memorial, transportation department

Transcript Highlights:

• So if there's further discussions on bears in the future, happy to be a part of it.
• So now in the Fish and Wildlife Commission, I half an overarching concern that we discussed during our
• As we discussed, I believe I said this in the committee before.
• A lot of this discussion is the primary land that Garcia and Mister Callum owns and operates is open
• Is there discussion? We've discuss everything. Okay. Very good.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• To this discussion, please follow directions of our sergeants.
• They're on their way to discuss affordability issue here in the state.
• Great, so we're going to have the panel get into discussion on this.
• And we're going to start that discussion.
• And so these discussions of how we deal with our small businesses are critical.

Committee: House Economic Development, Growth, and Household Impact

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, any further discussion on HB 153? Any further discussion?
• Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say "aye." Aye. All opposed say "nay."
• We'll slow this up a little bit; we'll have some discussions.
• I'd like to just give a little discussion here for HD14, just kind of boots on the ground discussion
• We did hear y'all, and we've been discussing this all week, and it's been loud.

Bills: HB154 , HB153 , HB180 , SB70

Committee: House Military and Veterans Affairs

Keywords: veterans affairs, Alabama Department of Veterans Affairs, State Board of Veterans Affairs, commissioner, governor appointment, board advisory, veteran service organizations, veterans homes, veterans cemeteries, veteran service officers, district managers, state veterans home trust fund, veterans benefits, military veterans, disabled veterans, elderly veterans, active-duty service members, state agency reorganization, executive authority, governance reform

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, members, any discussion on that?
• Any discussion on the Rogers floor amendment?
• Is there further discussion? Seeing none, those in favor vote aye; opposed vote no.
• Any discussion? No, there. Let's do the floor amendment to House Bill 296.
• Any discussion on the floor amendment?

Summary: The Senate convened, took attendance, approved the journal, and received gubernatorial communications and nominations. Several nominations were referred to committee, and messages from the House were entered, including transmission of Senate Bills 1058, 1237, and 1294 to the Governor. The chamber recessed for caucus, then reconvened and moved into Committee of the Whole to consider bills on the calendar. In Committee of the Whole, members considered HB 2082, HB 282, HB 2749, and HB 296 (the transcript also contains some misstatements of bill numbers/titles). Amendments were adopted on HB 282, HB 2749, and HB 296, including a Rogers floor amendment to HB 2749 establishing a sunset and a Shope floor amendment to HB 296 making technical and coordination changes related to water infrastructure and the Clean Water Act. The Committee of the Whole reported all of those measures do pass as amended, and the Senate later adopted the report. The Senate then took up additional business, including confirmation votes on gubernatorial nominees. John A. Conley, Ruby Dylan Williams, Thomas J. Connolly, Charles Essex, and Dr. Lynette Levesay were all confirmed. The chamber then passed several House bills on third reading, including HB 2308, HB 4011, HB 2049 as an emergency measure, HB 2253, and HB 2663, with recorded votes largely showing 24 ayes and 0 nays. Committee announcements were made for upcoming Natural Resources and Education meetings. Near adjournment, Senator Epstein gave a personal privilege statement criticizing ICE conduct in a Minnesota case and calling for accountability, and Senator Gonzales thanked her and offered birthday wishes to a family member. The Senate then adopted a motion to notify the Governor of the day’s confirmations and adjourned until Tuesday, May 26, 2026, subject to earlier recall by the President if needed.

Transcript Highlights:

• Further discussion. My only comment. All right. Further discussion. All right.
• Any further discussion? Questions about House Bill 18, maintenance and repair bill?
• Further discussion on House Bill 2019. All right.
• Anybody have a discussion on House Bill 20? Representative Taylor, Del Taylor.
• Further discussion. All right.

Committee: House Budget

Summary: The committee took up a series of capital and reappropriation bills, with the chair explaining proposed reductions or removals of funding that had not been spent or were no longer expected to be needed. Discussion focused on projects such as railroad grade crossing work, Mississippi levee stabilization, strategic mining, the Missouri Housing Trust Fund, tornado-related reappropriations, the Kansas City Behavioral Health Hospital, Camp Avery, and a Columbia-area highway/interchange project. Members asked for clarification on several items, including the strategic mining line item, the Columbia/Highway 63 project, and the treatment of older projects that had been appropriated in 2023 but had little or no expenditure. The chair said his general approach was to pull back funds that had not been used unless there was a clear, imminent need, and noted that some projects had grown significantly beyond original estimates. House Bill 2017 was amended and advanced after discussion of moving storm-related funding into reappropriations and concerns about taking large amounts out of the operating budget. The committee then adopted substitutes and voted House Bill 2017 do pass by a 28-1 vote, House Bill 2018 do pass by a 28-0 vote, House Bill 2019 do pass by a 29-0 vote, and House Bill 2020 do pass by a 28-0 vote. House Bill 2019 included a $10.7 million increase for a DSS youth services facility in the St. Louis area, described as a new treatment-oriented youth center in Bellefontaine, with members noting the project had risen from an earlier estimate of about $7 million to roughly $18 million total. House Bill 2020 involved final ARPA-related adjustments, including a small reduction and moving FTE language back to another bill, with the chair explaining that remaining unspent ARPA dollars would ultimately be directed to the foundation formula if not otherwise obligated and spent before the deadline.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then we will go to discussion. Thank you, Madam Chair.
• Might we have discussion? Representative Cheatham. Thank you, Madam Chair.
• Committee, I'll not be supporting the motion, but I would leave it open and be open for further discussion
• Committee, might there be any more comments or discussion?
• Committee, might there be any more comments or discussion?

Committee: House Local Government

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 892, sponsored by Representative Harris, which would change the number of nominees submitted to fill a midterm county commissioner vacancy based on county population. Under the bill, counties with 50,000 or fewer residents would submit one nominee, counties between 50,000 and 100,000 would submit two, and counties over 100,000 would continue to submit three. Harris argued the change would help small counties that struggle to find enough willing candidates and would preserve local control by letting county central committees make the selection. Jennifer Reby, a Payette County commissioner, testified in opposition. She said her county has had strong applicant pools for commissioner vacancies and argued that reducing the list to one nominee would effectively turn the central committee’s role into making the appointment itself, rather than preserving a meaningful choice for the governor. In discussion, several members raised concerns that the 50,000 threshold was too high and would affect most counties, while others supported the bill as a practical response to difficulty filling local vacancies. Some members suggested the bill went too far and should be revised rather than adopted as written. The committee then voted on a motion to send HB 892 to the floor with a due pass recommendation. The motion passed 8-6, and the bill was reported to the floor.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any discussion on that? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.
• After extensive discussions, the pole attachers and electric utilities collaborated to develop a draft
• Is there any discussion on that motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.
• Is there any discussion on that? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.
• Is there any discussion on that? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.

Committee: House State Affairs

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Discussion, because there are no amendments.
• Seeing no amendments, we will have some discussion, and I'll kick that off.
• I will have some discussion, and I'll kick that off.
• Seeing no amendments, discussion? Vice Chair Hall. Thank you, Madam Chair.
• Seeing no further discussion, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Summary: The Environment and Energy committee met for executive session on four bills. Staff briefed House Bill 2416, which would replace Climate Commitment Act no-cost allowances for the Spokane waste-to-energy facility with a separate regulatory scheme requiring emissions reductions, reporting to Ecology and Commerce, and enforcement provisions; members discussed whether emissions accounting included biogenic emissions and confirmed the reduction measures would need to occur on-site. House Bill 2537 would direct Ecology to recommend a future allowance schedule for emissions-intensive, trade-exposed facilities and require biennial reporting and periodic plans, while House Bill 2575 would reduce several Energy Independence Act and state energy strategy reporting requirements for utilities and Commerce. House Bill 2322, as amended in a proposed substitute, would delay alternative jet fuel tax incentives until July 1, 2031, remove capacity thresholds, tie eligibility to life-cycle rather than direct emissions, and drop a Clean Fuels Program carbon-intensity change. During executive action, the committee debated the policy impacts of the waste-to-energy bill, with supporters saying the Spokane facility is unique and needs a separate framework, and opponents arguing it would create costly disincentives and raise ratepayer costs. The EITE bill drew support from members who said it would help identify facility-specific decarbonization options, while opponents warned about competitiveness, job losses, and industry leaving the state. The reporting-reduction bill was described as a streamlining measure that would save utilities money and remove duplicative or outdated reports. The alternative jet fuel substitute was presented as a clarification and simplification of the incentive structure, and members praised the changes. All four measures were reported out of committee with due pass recommendations. House Bill 2416 and House Bill 2537 each passed on 12-9 votes, House Bill 2575 passed unanimously by voice vote, and the proposed substitute for House Bill 2322 also passed unanimously by voice vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• and deliberate on uh, to discuss and deliberate on uh, [Music] [Music] [Music] &gt;&gt; let<00:02:38.959
• Um, but I think just to be clear, I think that’s what we’re going to go into closed session and discuss
• Um, but I think just to be clear, I think that’s what we’re going to go into closed session and discuss
• But, uh, then as I think some of the records would have to be discussed probably in executive session
• I think some of the records would have to be discussed probably in executive session. Okay.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission met on October 14, 2025, with a quorum present and approved the minutes from the September 9 meeting. The commission then turned to an appeal in consolidated matters 2024 LEC 3 and 2024 LEC 6, with the chair clarifying that the appeal would be heard in open session before any closed deliberations. The hearing officer outlined that the respondent had filed a renewed motion to dismiss on different grounds than a prior motion denied at the last meeting. Enforcement counsel noted that a response had been filed and said additional discovery issues remained, including records and possible witnesses identified in responses. The chair and counsel also identified two procedural motions pending from enforcement: a motion to compel production and a motion to continue or postpone the hearing date. The commission discussed the procedural posture and whether the parties needed to make further argument, with the chair indicating the substantive motion to dismiss would be decided by the commission and the procedural motions could be ruled on by the chair. Before moving into executive session, the commission took a motion and second to enter closed session to discuss the pending motions and related discovery matters. The transcript cuts off during the vote on that motion, so no final ruling on the dismissal, discovery, continuance, or executive-session deliberations is shown in the provided excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, after we had our discussion this morning, I'd went up and asked the bank.
• And, you know, that's the discussion we need to have with the committee.
• And I said I was kind of trying to leave that open for you to have that discussion.
• There was a discussion on the application deadline, or rolling application.
• Well, we'll have that discussion in the morning. Okay.

Bills: HB1329

Committee: Senate Appropriations - Education and Environment Division

Keywords: government spending database, public expenditure transparency, open data, government transparency, school district spending, state spending, local government finance, education finance, budget database, expenditure reporting, salary transparency, benefits data, public records, Legislative Management study, North Dakota, school board training, superintendent, principal, business manager, higher education spending

Summary: The division first discussed Senate Bill 1540 and related amendments involving implementation mechanics, procurement exemptions, and an emergency clause. Bank of North Dakota representatives explained that, based on a timeline review with DPI, the project would be very difficult to implement for the 2026-27 school year without exemptions from state purchasing and IT oversight rules and without an emergency clause; they said the normal procurement process could take about 240 days and that a 15-month implementation window would likely push the start to 2027-28 if those changes were not adopted. Members also raised a separate policy question about a criminal penalty placeholder in the bill, and the committee agreed that the sentence was unnecessary and should be removed. The committee deferred means-testing questions and fiscal-note issues to the next morning, with the understanding that the bill would be drafted in a way that made it workable if it advanced. The committee then turned to the water budget bill and reviewed the latest amended version, which included changes to the Water Topics process, Southwest Pipeline line of credit provisions, Red River supply funding, Mouse River project amounts, general water funding, studies on Missouri River intakes and water governance/finance, and a carryover/transfer adjustment. Chris Cattermas of the Department of Water Resources said most of the carryover funds were already obligated, with the largest unobligated amount in flood control. After review, Senator Thomas moved a do-pass recommendation on the bill as amended, the motion was seconded, and the committee approved it unanimously. The chair noted that other bills would be taken up the next morning, including 1013, 1014, and 1540.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, a very timely discussion yesterday or this morning. And I bring that life of the work.
• I want to think about ways we can work together on adding additional room for discussion related to keeping
• We know that discussions will continue as we go forward.
• These are not easy discussions, and I want to say thank you for the discussions I've had with.
• and brought out in today's discussion.

Bills: HF2439

Committee: House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy

Keywords: environmental protection, pollution reduction, waste management, climate change, funding allocations

Transcript Highlights:

• Water and Land because those who are actually very important on this measure uh we may have some discussions
• </c><00:00:49.840><c> longer</c><00:00:50.320><c> than</c><00:00:50.480><c> the</c> have some discussions
• longer than the have some discussions longer than the two<00:00:51.039><c> minutes.
• Any discussion? Hearing none. Vice Chair, for the vote. Chair goes I.
• Any discussion hearing? None. consent. Any discussion hearing? None.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land heard GM 735, a nomination for consideration and confirmation to the Hawaii Community Development Authority (HCDA) of Michael Chia for a term ending June 30, 2029. HCDA Executive Director Craig Nakamoto testified in support, saying Chia had served on the board over the past year and brought experience in financial planning, client advising, and a willingness to serve the community. The committee also noted written testimony in support from DBEDT Director James Tokioka, Mike Ozua, and Ianaka LLC. Members discussed Chia’s role as the Kakaako business representative on the HCDA board and noted that his business is located in the Kakaako Community Development District. The chair praised HCDA’s work and said the agency’s responsibilities appear to be expanding beyond Oahu to the neighbor islands, including Maui. Chia thanked the committee and said he looked forward to the next four years. The chair recommended advise and consent on GM 735. There was no discussion against the motion, and the recommendation was adopted by vote, with the chair and vice chair voting aye; Senator Chang voted aye; Senator McKelby and Senator Dort were excused. The committee then concluded its agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor?
• </c> do thank you very much discussions do thank you very much discussions seeing<00:06:06.560><c> none
• and the other a bill concerning grant funding<00:06:35.560><c> any</c> funding any funding any discussion
• I've discussed it with you.
• I've discussed it with you.

Committee: Senate Rules and Enrolled Bills

Keywords: 1191, senate, all