Transcript Highlights:

• The ayes do have it, and you have amended the House proposal of amendment.
• Next, the member proposal of amendment.
• Now the House proposal of amendment.
• proposed moving My amendment proposed moving non-commercial<00:12:54.360> vehicle<00:12:55.120
• The question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment?

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House first took up Senate Bill 214, relating to pre-kindergarten education in geographically isolated school districts. After third reading, the chamber voted by voice to pass the bill in concurrence. The House then recessed briefly before returning to Senate Bill 326, a motor vehicle bill with several proposed amendments. On S. 326, the House adopted an amendment from Representative Burke clarifying that the DMV could not use the bill to change emissions-inspection rules. It then adopted an amendment from Representative Tomlinson adding a website-based public notice step to the abandoned-vehicle process, intended to supplement certified-mail notice and help owners protect their property; the committee reported support for the change, and the DMV testified in favor. Representative Noise then offered an amendment to move non-commercial vehicle inspections to every other year while keeping annual emissions compliance unless federal approval is obtained, but after explaining the proposal, he asked leave to withdraw it, and no objection was made. The House then passed S. 326 in concurrence with proposal of amendment and suspended the rules to message its action to the Senate forthwith. Finally, the House considered House Bill 674, relating to the Vermont Sister State Program. On a procedural motion, the chamber voted to commit the bill to the Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. A member asked whether the referral was intended to fix the bill or delay it, and the chair said the committee was working on another way to address the governor’s concerns and would revisit the issue the next day. The House then recessed until 3:30 p.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• million the governor's budget proposal million the governor's budget proposal is<00:04:47.440>
• <00:14:20.160> that then two some of the proposals that then two some of the proposals that
• what the governor's budget has proposed what the governor's budget has proposed which<00:15:09.920
• He's cutting disability waivers, but what he isn't doing in his budget proposal, and what he is proposing
• and what he doing in his budget proposal and what he uh<00:18:56.880> is<00:18:57.000> proposing

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: Senate Republican leaders held a press conference to roll out their “Minnesotans First” agenda, framing it as a response to Democratic control and arguing that recent budgets and policies have increased costs for families and businesses. They said the agenda centers on balancing the budget without tax increases, reducing mandates, lowering costs, and limiting government growth. Specific proposals mentioned included addressing inflation and energy costs, reinsurance and housing issues, child care tax changes, repealing or reducing certain taxes and fees, and creating a government efficiency board. Several senators outlined issue-specific priorities. On spending and taxes, Karin Housley criticized the state’s budget growth, said Republicans would not support a budget that raises taxes, and objected to shifting costs to counties and school districts. On fraud and accountability, Jordan Rasmusson said Minnesota has a fraud problem and backed a statewide Office of Inspector General, stronger legislative auditor powers, and tighter anti-fraud oversight of grants and agencies. On public safety, Michael Kreun called for repealing what he described as soft-on-crime laws and for tougher penalties on violent and repeat offenders. On education, Julia Coleman said Republicans want to pause mandates, increase local control, adjust funding to address disparities, and improve school safety. In the question-and-answer portion, leaders said some items could attract bipartisan support, especially anti-fraud measures such as an Inspector General office and strengthening the legislative auditor. They also discussed concerns about the governor’s budget, including proposed shifts in human services costs, nursing home and disability waiver funding, and benefits for undocumented immigrants. The group said it would continue working under the Senate’s power-sharing agreement for now, though they acknowledged uncertainty about whether it would remain in place for the rest of the session.

Transcript Highlights:

• I DO UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THERE ARE TO SPEAK ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT ONE 2065.
• IN TERMS OF RECOMMENDATIONS, OR TO SPEAK ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
• I ASSUME WE ARE GOING TO BE VOTING ON THIS PROPOSAL SHORTLY.
• NOT BILLS, PROPOSALS.
• BEFORE WE ARE PASSING THE VOTE ON THEIR PROPOSALS?

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And so I'll be um individual proposals.
• conference committee uh for proposed conference committee uh for proposed motions.<00:01:17.600>
• proposal? Anyone in the audience? proposal? Anyone in the audience?
• And so House members, the original author of that proposal and the author of a new proposal got together
• <00:46:24.560> It's proposals in the side by side. It's proposals in the side by side.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• proposals, nothing else. proposals, nothing else.
• The next proposal in the Senate bill is Senate File 4831. That is a Senator Weber proposal.
• That is a Senator Weber proposal. That is a Senator Weber proposal.
• That is a Westlin proposal.
• That is a Westlin proposal.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The proposal is $325 million.
• So the proposal is to kind of start slow with a pilot project.
• The chapter, but is not, as far as I saw in your proposal.
• But you also have two budget change proposals to add 29 positions.
• But that wasn't clear in the initial proposal.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• HB 1238, by Gea, relating to the inspection of the location of a proposed Class 1 injection well.
• HJR 89, by Parker, proposing a constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to override a veto of
• HAR 95, by Tepper, proposing a constitutional amendment to limit the time that a person may serve as
• HAR 96, by Jones of Dallas, proposing a constitutional amendment authorizing the commissioner's court
• HJR 99, by Harris, proposing a constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to exempt from ad

Summary: The House met to read a large slate of newly filed bills and resolutions and refer them to committees. The measures covered a wide range of topics, including health care and insurance, public education, elections, criminal justice, public safety, taxes, transportation, agriculture, environmental regulation, higher education, housing, and local government. Several proposals focused on abortion and reproductive health, firearms, voter registration and ballot access, school curriculum and accountability, property tax and homestead issues, and state contracting and agency oversight. A number of constitutional amendments were also filed, including proposals on initiative and referendum, veto override authority, vaccination refusal, parental rights in education, gun rights, Medicaid expansion, and various tax exemptions. No substantive debate, testimony, or votes occurred during this portion of the meeting; the clerk simply read the bills and resolutions and announced their committee referrals. The list included both general legislation and joint resolutions, with many items sent to standing committees and several to subcommittees. The House then adjourned without objection until 2 p.m. on Tuesday.

Transcript Highlights:

• The A4 also proposes an exactly.
• There's also a proposed over base.
• Um the A4 proposes total line 106.
• proposal. Section seven is on page 37. proposal. Section seven is on page 37.
• <00:40:06.240> They from the governor's proposal. They from the governor's proposal.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're not proposing trailer bill language to modify. fee schedule program, we're not proposing trailer
• And this proposal has no impact on those existing fees.
• And this proposal has no impact on those existing fees.
• We have two comments on the fees proposal, so this is not on the sanctions proposal.
• We also regrettably oppose both proposals.

Summary: The committee heard a budget oversight hearing on the Department of Health Care Services, focusing first on the overall Medi-Cal budget and a March General Fund loan to cover a current-year shortfall. DHCS said the 2025-26 budget proposal totals $193.4 billion, with Medi-Cal projected at $188.1 billion total funds and $42.1 billion General Fund, driven by higher enrollment, pharmacy costs, managed care growth, and costs tied to eligibility expansions and the COVID-era redetermination unwinding. The department said the $3.44 billion loan was needed to manage cash flow and ensure timely payments to providers and plans, while the LAO noted Medi-Cal’s cash-basis budgeting creates volatility and that more detailed estimates would come with the May Revision. Members discussed federal Medicaid threats, the need for transparency on cost drivers, and the impact of pharmacy spending, long-term care, and immigration-related coverage expansions. The second major topic was family health programs, including California Children’s Services, the continuous coverage unwinding, and opioid settlement fund spending. DHCS described CCS funding methodology changes, ongoing county stakeholder work, and a delayed rollout of CCS monitoring and oversight until July 1, 2025, while county representatives and advocates argued the program is underfunded and asked for more technical assistance and a delay in implementation. On the unwinding, the department explained that federal redetermination flexibilities helped maintain coverage after the pandemic, but the Governor’s budget proposes ending them at the end of June 2025; advocates urged making the flexibilities permanent to avoid coverage losses. For opioid settlement funds, DHCS and Finance said the budget increases funding for naloxone distribution while reducing other harm-reduction spending based on updated settlement revenues, prompting criticism from members and public commenters who argued the change would weaken effective harm-reduction programs. The hearing also included an update on Proposition 35 implementation. DHCS said the voter-approved measure continuously appropriates MCO tax revenues beginning in 2025, with up to $4.6 billion annually available for specified Medi-Cal and provider investments in 2025 and 2026, but implementation depends on consultation with the required stakeholder advisory committee. The department and LAO noted uncertainty about future federal rules affecting the MCO tax after 2026. Public testimony largely supported maintaining Medi-Cal expansions, protecting immigrant coverage, preserving harm-reduction funding, and increasing support for community health workers, pediatric dental care, and CCS county administration. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Minnesota have rejected the proposed Minnesota have rejected the proposed constitutional<00:38:08.400
• highlight this proposed highlight this proposed amendment<00:57:02.880> um<00:57:03.880><
• legislation if this particular proposal legislation if this particular proposal went<01:00:18.079
• adding this to this proposed adding this to this proposed Constitutional<01:08:21.679> Amendment
• well as in the Matthews proposal.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Elections Committee met on February 6, 2025, and first considered the reappointment of Steven Swanson to the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board. Swanson described his background in legal aid, lobbying, judging, and international rule-of-law work, and said he wanted to continue serving the public. Committee members praised his experience and discussed the importance of campaign finance oversight, including preventing corporate participation in Minnesota elections. Senator Wosinski moved to recommend Swanson’s confirmation, and the motion was adopted. The committee then heard Senate File 529, a proposed constitutional amendment to state that elections shall be free, fair, and equal, and that no civil or military power may interfere with the free exercise of the right to vote. Senator Dibble presented the bill as a way to strengthen voting rights and provide a constitutional basis to challenge voter suppression, gerrymandering, and unfair campaign practices. Testimony in support came from David Fischer of Clean Elections Minnesota and Jean Massie of Fair Vote Minnesota, both of whom argued the amendment would protect access to voting, increase confidence in elections, and align Minnesota with other states that have similar language. Members discussed whether the amendment’s broad language could invite judicial interpretation or affect future election laws. Senator Koran questioned how the proposal would improve Minnesota’s already high turnout, while Senator Grant raised concerns that the terms “free, fair, and equal” were undefined and could shift power to the courts. Senator Lucero proposed an oral amendment to add “ensuring one eligible citizen, one vote” after the word “equal,” saying it would address concerns about future voter ID laws. The amendment was restated by counsel and discussed, with Senator Dibble saying it did not significantly harm the bill but suggesting it might imply a requirement he did not intend. The transcript ends during discussion of that oral amendment, and no final vote on the bill itself is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• going to be using that um to uh propose going to be using that um to uh propose a<00:13:28.000><
• proposals proposals um<00:30:06.000> that<00:30:06.320> you<00:30:06.480> have<
• This proposal ...
• know, when we init initially proposed know, when we init initially proposed this<00:37:40.560>
• Uh I'm finalize a budget proposal.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Or do they feel like it's sufficiently funded with this proposal?
• Just a quick overview of the proposal.
• The proposed budget includes 31 budget proposals totaling 122 positions and $35.6 million, of which 17
• The proposed funding would support 11 budget proposals, including eight related to workload resulting
• No, this proposal does not.

Summary: The committee heard extensive testimony on Proposition 36 and its implementation, with judicial and budget officials describing it as a major shift from misdemeanor to felony processing for repeat drug possession and certain theft offenses. Witnesses explained that the law creates a treatment-mandated felony process that can lead to dismissal if a defendant completes treatment, but also requires evaluations, court monitoring, and potentially long, open-ended supervision. Judicial representatives said the new law is already generating large numbers of filings, creating workload, staffing, courtroom, and facility pressures, and that access to treatment beds, housing, and evaluation capacity is limiting participation. Several speakers emphasized that collaborative courts are effective but are not a perfect fit for Prop. 36 because those programs are typically probation-based and serve different risk/need populations. Court officials from San Bernardino and Orange counties said the impacts vary by county but are severe, with some counties seeing hundreds or more filings in a short period and others moving more slowly to build treatment infrastructure first. They argued that Prop. 36 is effectively an unfunded mandate unless the state provides more resources for judges, staff, facilities, treatment, housing, and supervision. The Legislative Analyst’s Office noted that Prop. 36 will reduce the Proposition 47 savings that fund mental health and substance use treatment grants, but said the near-term reduction is relatively modest and that the full effect will take time to appear because of the way those savings are calculated. Members of the committee repeatedly raised concerns that the state is underfunding the courts and counties needed to carry out the new law. The committee also reviewed the Governor’s proposed trial court operations budget, including a partial restoration of a prior $97 million cut and additional ongoing funding. Judicial branch officials said the restoration helped avoid furloughs, hiring freezes, and service reductions, and supported cybersecurity, technology, staffing, and records management. The LAO recommended that the Legislature seek more detail on how midyear restorations are handled and consider clarifying language for transferring unspent trial court trust fund monies to the General Fund. Finance said the flexibility in the ongoing funding was intentional and would be taken back for consideration. In a separate item, the committee heard testimony on a $6.3 million increase for Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal appointed counsel programs. Judicial officials and appellate project representatives said the system is facing a crisis because indigent appeals have risen sharply while the number of panel attorneys has fallen, leaving many cases waiting months for counsel. They argued the proposed increase would help but is still below what is needed to recruit and retain attorneys and prevent delays that affect criminal, juvenile, and child welfare cases. The committee also discussed the Tracy courthouse project in San Joaquin County, where local officials said reopening a courthouse closed since 2011 is necessary to serve a growing population and relieve overcrowding elsewhere. The LAO and Finance both noted the project is next in line under the facilities plan, though LAO suggested the Legislature could consider whether other facility priorities should come first.

Transcript Highlights:

• So my understanding is that in the proposed budget, the Water Board is proposing to eliminate the instream
• So we propose $5 million to do the operations of that.
• So we propose $5 million to do the operations of that.
• We think what the department has proposed has merit.
• We have a budget proposal before you that is a...”

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on water and coastal resilience heard an overview of the governor’s Proposition 4 spending plan, with presentations from the Department of Finance, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Water Resources, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and later coastal agencies. Members discussed the water chapter’s major allocations for drinking water and wastewater, recycled water, tribal water infrastructure, groundwater recharge and SGMA implementation, dam safety, flood protection, integrated regional water management, Salton Sea projects, and water data/stream gauges. The LAO noted that many programs are established and have clear funding processes, but some newer or less-defined programs may warrant more detailed future budget requests and reporting. No votes were taken on the agenda items. Members raised concerns about groundwater subsidence, water deliveries from the Delta, the pace of water storage investments, instream flows, and whether bond dollars were being used to backfill General Fund reductions. Administration witnesses said groundwater recharge spending is being paced because prior years already funded substantial SGMA work, that Delta operations are governed by water quality, salinity, and species requirements, and that Proposition 1 storage projects have moved slowly because they are locally led and require permitting and financing. The Water Board and DWR said they use public needs assessments, annual plans, and existing grant processes to prioritize projects, and Finance said some General Fund programs were shifted to Proposition 4 to help balance the budget. Members also asked for clearer public tracking of bond spending and more concise future reporting. In the coastal resilience portion, the Ocean Protection Council and Coastal Conservancy described Proposition 4 funding for sea level rise adaptation, coastal flood management, habitat restoration, public access, and San Francisco Bay projects, with a multi-year rollout based on project readiness and recent large state investments. The Conservancy said it would use its existing rolling grant process, while OPC said its sea level rise grants would build on existing programs and new technical assistance. The Department of Fish and Wildlife explained its proposed use of bond funds for climate-ready fisheries, hatchery modernization, salmon monitoring, whale- and turtle-safe fishing gear, and a specific hatchery operations request tied to the Friant settlement. The LAO said the coastal chapter’s proposed first-year spending is relatively modest but generally reasonable given staffing and project readiness, while members emphasized oversight, transparency, and coordination across agencies and jurisdictions.

Transcript Highlights:

• ,<01:51:38.159> the<01:51:38.400> proposed Senate's proposal, the proposed Senate's
• proposal, the proposed amendment<01:51:39.360> and<01:51:39.599> asked<01:51:39.840>
• <01:51:46.480> of concur in the senate proposal of concur in the senate proposal of amendment
• Senate proposal of amendment. Senate proposal of amendment.
• refuse to concur in the Senate proposal refuse to concur in the Senate proposal of<01:57:25.840>

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House returned to Senate Bill 325 on regional planning and Act 250 tier jurisdiction and first took up Representative Charlton’s amendment to extend the interim housing exemptions in tier one areas from 2028 to 2030. Charlton argued the change would better align the exemptions with the state’s 2030 housing targets and give rural communities and smaller developers more realistic time to plan and build. Committee members opposing the amendment said the exemptions would no longer be needed once 1A and 1B areas are established, and Ways and Means reported an unfavorable straw poll. After debate, the House rejected the amendment by roll call, 66-76. During debate, members discussed whether the extension would help or hinder housing production, with supporters emphasizing rural Vermont, achievable timelines, and the need for certainty for developers, while opponents stressed that the temporary exemptions were meant to bridge the transition to the new tier system. The House also heard questions about whether any communities had actually adopted 1A or 1B status yet, and it was noted that future land use maps were not yet complete. The chamber then moved to a second amendment from Representative Dobervich, which would extend certain interim Act 250 exemptions for designated village centers and nearby areas through January 1, 2031, including projects of 50 units or fewer or mixed-income/mixed-use projects meeting specified infrastructure criteria, with municipal bodies able to opt out. Dobervich said the proposal would expand access to the interim exemptions for rural communities that lack permanent zoning or subdivision bylaws but otherwise meet the criteria, helping more towns build housing in already developed areas. Opponents argued the amendment could allow too much development in small towns without local review and questioned how many municipalities would actually qualify. The debate continued with members discussing the relationship between Act 181, the temporary exemptions, and the ongoing work to create future land use maps and tier designations.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will be discussing proposals We will be discussing proposals.
• The investments we are making with our one-house budgets and the Governor proposed are really important
• One is the proposal the Governor has to expand SUNY Reconnect, which is allowing students from age 25
• One is the proposal the Governor has to expand SUNY Reconnect, which is allowing students from age 25
• The changes that are being proposed by, you know, in terms of the TAP program, I think, go a long way

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Higher Education Conference Committee met to discuss budget priorities for SUNY, CUNY, community colleges, TAP, student aid, and capital funding. Chair Toby Ann Stavisky emphasized the need for increased operating and capital support, protection against enrollment-based funding losses, no tuition increases, a review of TAP because it has not kept pace with living costs, and action on student loan access and research funding cuts. Assembly Chair Alicia Hyndman outlined the Assembly’s higher education proposal, including $475.7 million to expand TAP eligibility, raising income thresholds for TAP and the Excelsior Scholarship, creating a graduate tuition assistance program, adding community college operating aid, expanding the Opportunity Promise Scholarship, forgiving SUNY hospital debt service, increasing CUNY operating support, restoring opportunity program funding, creating a $110 million student loan support program called New York Rises, and funding five-year capital plans for SUNY and CUNY plus additional ECAP grants. Members broadly supported making higher education more affordable and accessible, while highlighting district-specific needs. Senator May praised SUNY Reconnect, community college workforce programs, hospital debt service relief, and a five-year SUNY capital plan. Senator Gonzalez framed the budget as an investment in economic mobility. Senator Griffo supported affordability, operating and capital aid, and additional support for medical schools and hospitals. Assembly Members Walker, Colton, and Fall backed TAP expansion, opportunity programs, disability supports, SUNY Downstate’s transformation, and capital needs at CUNY and SUNY campuses. Assembly Member Smullen, speaking for the minority conference, urged a five-way budget process, said TAP has not kept pace with inflation, and called for a more stable long-term funding model for community colleges. He also stressed aligning higher education with workforce needs. Assembly Member Pirozzolo pointed to the College of Staten Island as an example of the benefits of investment and warned that employers recruiting students directly from high school could weaken higher education unless colleges continue strengthening trade and career training. The meeting ended with no vote on the budget items, and the chairs adjourned the conference committee after concluding remarks.

Transcript Highlights:

• The document is titled Proposed Sections for Adoption, 5/19/2025, on the top.
• c><00:25:03.919> polling<00:25:04.320> places proposal related to um polling places proposal
• related to this topic that is proposed related to this topic that is proposed to<00:25:14.240>
• The proposal is legislative vacancies.
• Row 11 proposal is is an effective date.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We're not proposing trailer bill language.
• Switching gears to the PACE and HCBA sanctions proposal, the HCBA waiver and PACE sanctions proposal
• We have two comments on the fees proposal. This is not on the sanctions proposal.
• We also regrettably oppose both proposals.
• Sure, and so our proposal...

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• will see a tax cut under the proposal will see a tax cut under the proposal and<00:19:45.760>
• <00:42:18.440> would abstract pilt cut in this proposal would abstract pilt cut in this proposal
• you're going home to potential proposed you're going home to potential proposed levies<00:43:08.160
• <00:53:15.240> the negatively impacted by The Proposal the negatively impacted by The Proposal
• proposed appropriation.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 2437, the governor’s proposed tax bill, and first adopted the A25-Z42 amendment to put the bill in the desired shape. Commissioner Paul Marquardt of the Department of Revenue then presented the bill as part of Governor Walz and Lieutenant Governor Flanagan’s budget, describing it as a response to budget pressures that would make the tax system more fair and stable while supporting economic development and jobs. Marquardt walked through the bill’s major provisions. These included sustainable aviation fuel policy, repeal of K-12 education credit assignment, elimination of the political contribution refund, expansion of the research and development credit, short-line railroad infrastructure modernization, changes to the state airport fund levy, replacement of attachments and appearances with distribution systems, a narrow personal property tax exception for low-income housing tenants, reduced aquatic invasive species aid, and a 34% reduction in PILT payments. He then focused on the sales tax article, saying it would lower the statewide rate by 0.75% while expanding the base to selected professional services such as accounting, banking, brokerage, and legal services, with business-to-business transactions exempt. He said the proposal would be effective for sales and purchases after September 30, 2025, and estimated a first-year rate-cut impact of about $99 million versus $215 million from the service expansion, while arguing that most households would see a net tax cut. He also noted other changes such as landlord penalty adjustments, a 30% reduction in sustainable aviation fuel incentive payments, repeal of local government cannabis aid, and repeal of the tax filing modernization account. Public testimony began with Kyle Playford of the Financial Planning Association of Minnesota, who strongly opposed the proposed sales tax on professional services, especially financial planning. He argued that financial planning is an essential service for retirement, investment, and long-term financial security, and said the tax would raise costs for consumers, reduce access for middle-class families, small business owners, and retirees, and put Minnesota firms at a competitive disadvantage. The chair then indicated that additional public testimony would continue before member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• The question is, shall the Senate concur in the House proposal of amendment?
• The question is, shall the Senate concur in the House proposal of amendment?
• The question is, shall the Senate concur in the House proposal of amendment?
• Question is, shall the Senate concur in the House proposal of amendment?
• The House proposal of amendment?

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• prepared a proposed CD1. prepared a proposed CD1.
• your proposal.
• Yes, to outline your proposal.
• iteration of your proposal. Correct. to iteration of your proposal.
• outline your proposal. Yes. outline your proposal. Yes.

Bills: HB2241, HB1163, HB1514, HB1696, HB2021, SB2135, SB2466, SB2727, SB3082, SB3097, SB2861, SCR100, SB3096, SB99, SB2138, HB2289, HB2319, HB1711, HB2270, SB3138, SB3076, HB1642, HB2338, HB2171, HB1785, SB2881, HB2505, SB2552, HB1518, HB1815, SB3125, SB3234, SCR162, SB2614, SB3118, SB2053, SB2494, SB2851, SB3073, HB1678, HB1721, HB2475, HB2246, HB1667, HB1516, SB2532, SB3131, SB3154, HB2297, HB1737, SB2143, SB2398, SB2623, HB1740, HB1920, HB1682, SB2153, SB3140, HB2158, HB1718, HB2207, HB1801, SB3229, SB2338, SB3069, SB2600, HB2300, HB1800, HB1960, SB2999, SB2060, SB2866, SB2239, HB1741, HB1713, HB2023, HB2417, SB2877, SB2598, SB2921, SB2645, HB2547, HB2275, HB2452, HB2329, HB2339, HB1838, HB1509, HB1661, HB2271, HB2272, HB2344, HB1888, HB1707, SB2340, HB2474, HB1576, HB1853, HB1804, HB1854, HB2095, HB2050, HB472, SB3215, SB2247, SB2400, HB1618, HB1802, HB1969, HB1541, HB2310, HB2498, HB2443, HB2218, HB649, HB2104, HB1710, SB2802, HB1973, HB1974, HB1894, HB1891, HB1890, SB177, SB2101, SB3320, SB2487, HB2429, HB1870, HB1839, HB2583, HB1391, HB2094, SB2671, SB2673, SB2892, SB2057, SB3245, HB306, HB2592, SB3157, SB3204, SB3324, SB2580, SB2074, SB411, SB3025, SB2934, SB2567, SB2125, SB3238, SB2367, SB2599, SB3007, SB2001, SB2756, SB3029

Keywords: renewable energy, income tax credit, solar energy, wind energy, low-income households, energy policy, commercial drivers license, non-domiciled, federal regulations, commercial learner's permit, citizenship, lawful residency, Department of Transportation, workers' compensation, vocational rehabilitation, injury recovery, employment services, return to work, commercial driving, driver's license