Transcript Highlights:

• So the premise of your question is simply not correct.
• Taxpayer liability by creating state legislation, by creating state sanctions, by creating opportunities
• I'm going to focus again on the in-state tuition part, and I understand that for many of you, the premise
• I understand that's an underlying premise.
• I guess I would challenge the premise of the question.

Summary: The Senate Appropriations Committee took up SB 2-C, a major immigration enforcement bill sponsored by Senator Gruters and co-introduced by Senator Fine. Gruters described the measure as a broad crackdown on illegal immigration that would replace a single immigration officer with a State Board of Immigration Enforcement, create a $250 million grant program for local law enforcement, fund additional Department of Agriculture interdiction staff and facilities, expand pretrial detention for certain unauthorized immigrants, increase criminal penalties, require more cooperation with ICE, and eliminate in-state tuition eligibility for undocumented students. He and supporters framed the bill as a way to support law enforcement, deter illegal immigration, and align Florida with federal enforcement efforts. Committee questioning focused heavily on the bill’s education, detention, and enforcement provisions. Senators pressed Gruters and Fine on why the bill did not address employer sanctions or E-Verify, whether the tuition changes would affect students who had grown up in Florida, how sanctuary-policy enforcement would work, and whether the bill would create practical burdens for prosecutors, jails, and local officials. Gruters said he was open to working on E-Verify in regular session but not to amending this bill, and Fine argued the tuition repeal would apply to undocumented students who had qualified under existing law. Sheriff Bob Gualtieri testified in support, saying ICE bed capacity was still insufficient and that county jails needed more resources to honor detainers. Mark Schlachman of FSU Law offered historical context, noting prior state-federal cooperation efforts and warning of unintended consequences, while several public witnesses opposed the bill as unconstitutional, costly, and harmful to immigrant families and the economy. Opponents from the Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU of Florida, Florida Center for Fiscal and Economic Policy, Florida Policy Institute, AFL-CIO, and immigrant advocacy groups argued the bill would invite litigation, encourage racial profiling, harm the workforce and higher education, and punish law-abiding immigrants and their families. They emphasized that immigration is a federal matter, that K-12 education must be provided regardless of status, and that removing in-state tuition would reduce access to college and hurt Florida’s economy. Some speakers urged the committee to grandfather current students if the tuition waiver is repealed. The meeting ended with continued public testimony and no final vote reflected in the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the premise of your question is simply not correct.
• attempting to shield from... ...taxpayers whom he and you are attempting to shield from taxpayer liability
• I'm going to focus again on the in-state tuition part, and I understand that for many of you, the premise
• I understand that's an underlying premise.
• I guess I would challenge the premise of the question.

Summary: The Senate Appropriations Committee met to hear SB 2-C, a major immigration enforcement bill sponsored by Senator Gruters and co-introduced by Senator Fine. The sponsor described the bill as a response to federal immigration priorities and said it replaces a single immigration officer with a State Board of Immigration Enforcement, expands local-federal cooperation, increases penalties for crimes committed by unauthorized immigrants, requires detention in certain cases, broadens information sharing, funds detention-bed expansion and law-enforcement training, and ends in-state tuition waivers for undocumented students. The bill also includes provisions related to sanctuary policies, voter fraud, transport of unauthorized aliens, and driver’s license-related offenses. The sponsor said the bill appropriates roughly $300 million overall, including $250 million for grants and $48 million for the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for interdiction and border-related enforcement work. Committee members questioned the bill’s scope, costs, and implementation. Senators focused heavily on the tuition-waiver repeal, asking how many students would be affected and whether the bill would harm students who have long lived in Florida. They also pressed on whether the bill should include stronger E-Verify provisions, how sanctuary-policy enforcement would work, whether local officials could be penalized for policy choices, and how immigration status would be verified in court and jail settings. The sponsor and Senator Fine said the tuition waiver would be removed for undocumented students, that the bill does not address E-Verify, and that the measure is intended to make immigration status a factor in detention and sentencing. Questions also addressed detention-bed capacity, reimbursement rates, and whether corrections staff would receive bonuses or salary increases; sponsors said bonuses are included for participating law enforcement, while broader salary issues would be handled in the regular budget process. Public testimony was sharply divided. Supporters and information-only witnesses, including Sheriff Bob Gualtieri and former officials, said the bill would help Florida coordinate with federal authorities, expand bed space, and close loopholes in existing immigration enforcement. Opponents from the Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU of Florida, Florida Policy Institute, labor groups, and immigrant advocates argued the bill is unconstitutional, likely to trigger litigation, and harmful to families, schools, and the economy. They warned that the pretrial detention provisions could lead to wrongful detentions and that the tuition changes would reduce access to higher education and cost the state tuition revenue. No final vote is reflected in the transcript excerpt, but the committee continued through public comment and extended the meeting to complete the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, your tax liability remains the same.
• So, your tax liability remains the same.
• So, your tax liability remains the same.
• So, your tax liability remains the same.
• So, your tax liability remains the same.

Keywords: Call to Order and Roll Call: 0:03 Bills for Consideration: 3:10 Adjournment: 56:19, 958, all

Summary: The Senate Education Committee heard House Bill 1, which would have Kentucky opt into a federal education freedom tax credit program allowing donations to scholarship-granting organizations (SGOs) for K-12 educational expenses. The bill sponsors said it would not use Kentucky general funds, would be administered through the Secretary of State, and would let donors claim up to a $1,700 federal tax credit for contributions to SGOs. They argued the program could support public, private, religious, and homeschool-related educational needs, including tutoring, transportation, technology, special needs services, and other school expenses. Several senators raised concerns about whether the bill would favor larger districts with more school-choice options over rural counties with only one public school, creating a two-tier system. The sponsors responded that public school districts could also create SGOs and that the federal rules limit eligibility to families at or below 300% of area median gross income. They also said the program would not reduce existing state or federal school funding, but would instead redirect federal tax credit dollars that Kentucky donors might otherwise send to other states or back to the federal government. Members asked about the structure and oversight of SGOs, including whether they must be nonprofits, how broad their missions could be, and whether funds could be earmarked for specific purposes. The sponsors said SGOs must be certified, serve at least two schools and 10 students, spend at least 90% of receipts on scholarships, and cannot be directed to a specific student, though they can be targeted to categories such as elementary students or special needs services. They also said homeschool families would need to organize through a co-op or existing approved SGO. No vote was taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• helping during emergencies like storm recovery will receive the proper employment protections and liability
• transitioning away from wireless for primary connectivity and investing in fiber optics to and through the premises

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on a range of energy, utility, broadband, and municipal infrastructure bills. Representative Powell supported H 3466, which would create a task force to study public ownership of utilities and alternatives to investor-owned electric and gas systems. Representative Therber supported H 3574, which would use RGGI funds to reimburse cities and towns affected by power plant decommissioning, citing lost jobs, tax revenue, and service cuts in communities such as Somerset, Plymouth, Salem, and Everett. Several witnesses from municipal light plants and related organizations testified in support of mutual aid bills, including H 3486/S 2252 and H 3330/S 2277, saying the measures would clarify protections and liability coverage for MLP workers assisting in emergencies and non-emergency work. Jim Leiden of EMWIC opposed H 3514/S 2295, saying the proposed board and governance changes would reduce local control, add burdens, and weaken confidentiality protections. A committee member asked whether the mutual aid bills had been reviewed for municipal impacts, and the witnesses said they had done due diligence. The committee also heard extensive testimony on H 3551/S 2306, the smart meter opt-out bills. Supporters argued that smart meters emit harmful wireless radiation, that some residents have developed health problems or electromagnetic sensitivity, and that opt-outs should be available without fees or penalties; several witnesses urged notification, consent, and non-transmitting analog meter options. The committee also heard testimony from municipal officials and the Massachusetts Municipal Association in support of H 3462/S 2250, which would strengthen municipal authority to enforce timely removal of double utility poles, citing safety, accessibility, and construction-delay concerns. Derek Leffert of Gateway Fiber opposed H 3450, saying it would improperly shift broadband deployment costs to competitors. At the end of testimony, the chair closed the hearing by motion and vote, with members voting aye and no opposition recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• And unlike many other cases, including Troxel, they started from the premise, which is in H.J.R.-34,
• Senate Bill 387 would provide judges with greater protection from personal liability.

Bills: SB387, SB1650, SB1838, SB1839, SB1923, SB1940, SB2052

Keywords: judicial bond, guardianship, probate law, county judge, statutory county court, attorney general, criminal prosecution, public order, law enforcement, jurisdiction, attorney ad litem, parent-child relationship, compensation, legal representation, government entity, probate, court proceedings, record delivery, wills, legal documentation

Summary: The Senate Committee on Jurisprudence heard several family-law and probate bills. Senate Bill 2052 would codify a rebuttable presumption that a parent acts in the best interest of a child and require clear and convincing evidence to overcome that presumption in disputes involving non-parents; the author and several witnesses supported the bill as a clarification of existing case law, while one witness suggested refining the modification language. Public testimony was closed and the bill was left pending. The committee also heard Senate Bill 1923, which would allow child support to follow a child placed temporarily with kin or fictive kin under a parental child safety placement or authorization agreement; the bill’s author and a grandparent caregiver testified in support, while one witness suggested the Attorney General could handle the change administratively. That bill was also left pending. Senate Bill 1838 would standardize fee schedules and compensation rules for attorneys ad litem and related court-appointed counsel in DFPS child-protection cases. The author said the bill would clarify unclear current law, and witnesses from the Texas Indigent Defense Commission and family-defense bar supported it, though one asked that expert-witness expenses be expressly included. Senate Bill 387 would raise the bond requirement for county judges handling guardianship proceedings to at least $500,000; the author described it as a refiling of a prior bill that passed unanimously but was vetoed, and a statutory probate judge testified in support. Senate Bill 1839 would require original or paper wills to be delivered to the transferee court when probate proceedings are transferred; the committee substitute broadened the delivery methods, and the district clerk witness supported the change. All three bills were left pending. The committee also took up Senate Bill 1536, which had previously been voted out with the wrong committee substitute; members reconsidered the vote, adopted the corrected substitute, and then voted 3-0 to report the bill favorably to the full Senate, with local and contested calendar certification. Finally, Senate Bill 1940 would create a transfer-on-death mechanism for manufactured homes classified as personal property, similar to existing tools for real property and vehicles; the author and an estate-planning attorney testified that it would streamline transfers and reduce probate costs. A non-substantive committee substitute was still being prepared, and the bill was left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• going to be a quality-driven auto algorithm that we've noticed all the plans on, and that is the premise
• Madam Chair, thank you, Representative Nicole Chavez, followed by Eleanor Chavez. assurance and the liability

Transcript Highlights:

• They play a very key role in what we do, and they should have the liability for that, too.
• They play a very key role in what we do, and they should have the liability for that, too.
• Have those medications undergo a safety check by a licensed premises and we distribute the medications
• It's going to be passed into law and it touches on civil and criminal liabilities.
• It's going to be passed into law and it touches on civil and criminal liabilities.

Bills: HF3454, HF3917, HF2906, HF3832, HF3769

Keywords: social work, licensure, employment titles, health occupations, professional standards, medication repository, drug donation, healthcare, Minnesota Statutes, pharmacy, public health, controlled substances, psilocybin, psilocin, psychedelic, psychedelic medicine, hallucinogen, mushrooms, magic mushrooms, therapeutic use

Bills: SB2347, SB2911, SB2033, SB2158, SB2993, SB2778, SB2672, SB2014, SB3144, SB3096, SB3097, SB2968, SB2363, SB3154, SB2400, SB3313, SB2896, SB3279, SB2614, SB2687, SB2754, SB2549, SB3325, SB2658, SB2659, SB2602, SB2611, SB2877, SB3063, SB2615, SB3232, SB2875, SB3272, SB2854, SB3203, SB2803, SB2804, SB3302, SB3229, SB2969, SB2412, SB2657, SB2880, SB2540, SB2414, SB3142, SB3202, SB2281, SB2852, SB2272, SB2479, SB2589, SB2936, SB2720, SB2730, SB2749, SB2688, SB2798, SB3040, SB3107, SB3010, SB3109, SB3140, SB3187, SB2057, SB2377, SB3048, SB3083, SB3182

Keywords: tenant rights, landlord obligations, housing crisis, eviction prevention, multilingual access, intoxicating liquor, direct shipment, breweries, distilleries, Hawaii, renewable energy, grid-ready homes, interconnection process, electric utility, energy independence, surcharge, customer access, energy storage, smart inverters, veterinary workforce

Bills: HB145, HB164, HJR6, HR1, HB20, HB65, HB66, HB80, HB166, HB295, HB306, SB29, SB37, HB99, HB206, HB213, HB270, HJR5, SB104, SB193, HJM2, HJM3, HJM1, HM7, HM17, HM4, HM22, HM23, HM24, HM26, HM2, HM16, HM32, HM13, HM47, HM20, HM51, HM1, HM31, HM35, HM36, HM46, HM53, HM54, HM39, HM11, HM14, HM21, HM34, HM50

Keywords: high-wage jobs, tax credit, job creation, New Mexico, economic development, lobbying, transparency, public records, government oversight, accountability, constitutional amendment, legislative sessions, veto override, New Mexico legislature, session length, House Resolution 1, HR1, House investigatory subcommittee, special committee, legislative investigation

Transcript Highlights:

• So I guess what I'm trying to ask is, 77A or 77E... ...it talks about the business tax liability, but
• So again, on line 16, it's basically we want to make if it's an on-site premise closure versus a contract
• So again, on line 16, it's basically we want to make if it's an on-site premise closure versus a contract
• want to make if it's an on-site premise uh<01:24:41.120> on<01:24:41.360> premise<01:24
• closure versus a contract uh on premise closure versus a contract in<01:24:43.760> some<01:24

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• incorporated in this amendment and then, lastly, again with the medical society's guidance, the liability
• incorporated in this amendment and then, lastly, again with the medical society's guidance, the liability
• incorporated in this amendment and then, lastly, again with the medical society's guidance, the liability
• Lastly, again with the medical society's guidance, the liability and negligence, saying essentially in
• people who are interfering with other people's right to, you know, quiet enjoyment of their own premises

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It rests on two flawed premises.
• It rests on two flawed premises.
• Meanwhile, the work we do every day has only become more complex. liability.
• allows human physical therapists to work on an animal as long as they are at a registered veterinary premises

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Let me start off with one simple premise.
• I agree with your first premise that humans have to be involved, but an internist who's capable with
• Often those are fixable issues, but if you're going to- People don't want to be liabilities, to your
• nomination and the opportunities that that The General Government Accountability Office, well let me premise

Keywords: Michael Falkender, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, IRS, taxpayer privacy, nomination process, committee hearing

Summary: The committee convened to discuss critical issues surrounding the nomination of Michael Falkender for the position of Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. This meeting included a series of remarks from committee members who expressed divergent views on Falkender's qualifications and the implications of his appointment. Senator Wyden voiced strong opposition, arguing that Falkender represents harmful policies expected to be perpetuated under the current administration, especially concerning taxpayer privacy and IRS tactics. Meanwhile, other members defended Falkender, noting his extensive experience, including a commitment to transparency in government operations if confirmed.

Transcript Highlights:

• individuals who would participate in the electronic monitoring program carry certain types of general liability
• bid process and qualifications for participating electronic monitoring providers to have general liability
• So of all the three sections of court, right, are you consistent with that premise of last in, first
• Are you consistent with that premise of last in, first out?
• What this resolution does is ask the Department of Conservation and Energy to study the state's liability

Bills: HB410, HR310, HR314, HR316, HR317, HR321, HR275, HR276, HR279, HR282, HR286, HR289, HR292, HR295, HR302, HR319, HR307, HR273, SCR59, SCR61, SCR62, SCR68, SCR69, SCR70, SCR54, SCR55, SCR64, SCR75, HCR32, HB776, HB42, HB119, HB159, HB302, HB1017, HB1028, SB217, SB283, HB953, SB208, HR74, HB998, HB901, HR20, HCR65, HCR71, HCR98, HB284, HB306, HB341, HB366, HB393, HB458, HB577, HB603, HB605, HB614, HB625, HB646, HB733, HB752, HB773, HB798, HB911, HB955, HB996, HB1035, HB1069, HB1113, HB1140, HB1180, HB1191, HB1240, HB1255, SB82, SB89, SB97, SB123, SB237, HB36, HB74, HB75, HB258, HB259, HB414, HB459, HB784, HB848, HB956, HB1095, HB1220, HB1252, SB469, SB479

Keywords: recording, privacy, notification, direct conversation, law enforcement, first responder, penalties, oil and gas, orphan wells, inactive wells, shut-in wells, marginal wells, plugging and abandonment, well decommissioning, site remediation, site restoration, Oilfield Site Restoration, OSR program, financial security, bonding

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, there's a basic premise in gun law that anyone who does any type of research in this shows
• But PLCAA's liability shield, while broad, is not absolute.
• And Massachusetts has the chance to tell the firearms industry that it cannot and will not skirt liability
• I want to be clear: this bill does not create strict liability or guarantee a favorable judgment, and
• Expanding pathways to civil liability within the state will not only provide civil justice to victims

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused heavily on firearms legislation, especially bills to repeal Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024 (including H. 2618/S. 1671 and related repeal measures) and bills on firearm industry accountability (H. 2672/S. 1653). Supporters of repeal, including Senator Peter Durant, Rep. Ken Sweezey, gun owners, instructors, sportsmen, and women’s gun-rights advocates, argued that Chapter 135 overreaches, creates confusion in licensing and training requirements, burdens lawful gun owners, restricts pepper spray and semi-automatic firearms, and is being enforced in ways they said criminalize responsible conduct. Committee members defending the law said it was the product of years of work, public listening sessions, and multiple drafts, and argued that Massachusetts remains the safest state for gun violence and that implementation issues, such as live-fire training, had been delayed to allow time for regulations and infrastructure. Several witnesses also testified on H. 2672/S. 1653, which would create firearm industry standards of conduct and allow civil actions against manufacturers, distributors, and dealers that engage in unsafe or unlawful practices. Supporters from the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, Everytown, Brady, Giffords, and survivors described the bill as a way to hold the industry accountable, reduce the flow of crime guns, and give victims and the Attorney General a path to sue bad actors. They cited data on crime-gun traces, disproportionate impacts on communities of color, and examples from other states that have enacted similar laws. Opponents, including gun dealers and industry representatives, argued that existing law already punishes illegal sales, that most crime guns are stolen or diverted after lawful sale, and that the bill would improperly target manufacturers for the actions of others. The committee also heard testimony on a bill to remove the non-resident ban on semi-automatic firearms for hunting (H. 2710/S. 1676), with Backcountry Hunters and Anglers supporting the change as a way to restore access for returning residents, veterans, and hunting programs that had been displaced. Later testimony returned to repeal and related gun-law bills, with sportsmen’s groups arguing Chapter 135 was rushed, confusing, and harmful to youth hunting and lawful ownership. No votes or final committee actions were taken during the hearing; it was a public testimony session with extensive questioning by committee members.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 2610 by Blanco, relating to civil liability of business entities in connection with a breach
• Senate Bill 2610 by Blanco, relating to civil liability of business entities in connection with a breach
• Senate Bill 2505 by Hinojosa of Nueces, relating to liability protections for commercial space flight
• allowing concealed handguns on the business premises, to State Affairs.
• Senate Bill 2755 by Kockhorst, relating to damage liability for a collision with a motorist who failed

Bills: SJR 12, SCR 39, SB 27, SB 29, SB 241, SB 406, SB 414, SB 464, SB 568, SB 578, SB 609, SB 660, SB 689, SB 693, SB 785, SB 857, SB 879, SB 921, SB 922, SB 955, SB 985, SB 993, SB 996, SB 1008, SB 1035, SB 1036, SB 1059, SB 1098, SB 1120, SB 1122, SB 1147, SB 1188, SB 1197, SB 1209, SB 1227, SB 1245, SB 1267, SB 1307, SB 1321, SB 1332, SB 1386, SB 1396, SB 1453, SB 1484, SB 1494, SB 1536, SB 1537, SB 1596, SB 1610, SB 1664, SB 1741, SB 1814, SB 1822, SB 1841, SB 1948, SB 2065, SB 2155, SB 2188, SB 2230, SB 2406, SB 2407, SJR 36, SJR 12, SJR 81, SJR 50, SCR 22, SCR 12, SCR 39, SB 406, SB 689, SB 765, SB 62, SB 666, SB 888, SB 687, SB 847, SB 1248, SB 504, SB 857, SB 305, SB 296, SB 284, SB 241, SB 304, SB 1023, SB 204, SB 609, SB 670, SB 850, SB 854, SB 413, SB 1346, SB 1033, SB 1220, SB 1073, SB 810, SB 1539, SB 447, SB 1119, SB 1505, SB 1215, SB 1302, SB 583, SB 673, SB 681, SB 1172, SB 955, SB 957, SB 1120, SB 541, SB 266, SB 1415, SB 53, SB 1352, SB 785, SB 1450, SB 1502, SB 1566, SB 414, SB 1062, SB 711, SB 746, SB 1404, SB 1448, SB 507, SB 1026, SB 1349, SB 1355, SB 1433, SB 1434, SB 1596, SB 1403, SB 667, SB 1059, SB 1567, SB 310, SB 311, SB 505, SB 1209, SB 1210, SB 1470, SB 264, SB 1029, SB 1358, SB 1364, SB 1569, SB 1376, SB 1228, SB 519, SB 1350, SB 462, SB 827, SB 1585, SB 1396, SB 1484, SB 1273, SB 1741, SB 927, SB 1227, SB 1229, SB 1353, SB 1464, SB 1709, SB 1729, SB 1733, SB 1744, SB 1772, SB 1841, SB 2188, SB 1147, SB 879, SB 1008, SB 1536, SB 2016, SB 1453, SB 1173, SB 1163, SB 996, SB 27, SB 568, SB 1370, SB 1321, SB 1101, SB 860, SB 993, SB 693, SB 1610, SB 1537, SB 1332, SB 1307, SB 963, SB 493, SB 922, SB 984, SB 619, SB 1098, SB 1122, SB 455, SB 522, SB 1057, SB 1239, SB 1254, SB 1255, SB 1259, SB 1341, SB 1664, SB 1877, SB 464, SB 1277, SB 32, SB 732, SB 660, SB 731, SB 921, SB 268, SB 1822, SB 1188, SB 1589, SB 397, SB 2230, SB 1058, SB 1036, SB 1267, SB 2112, SB 1930, SB 532, SB 1035, SB 2155, SB 508, SB 29, SB 292, SB 291, SB 901, SB 1333, SB 1436, SB 1494, SB 964, SB 779, SB 1378, SB 2312, SB 1719, SB 1386, SB 287, SB 2143, SB 1245, SB 261, SB 1247, SB 1948, SB 2406, SB 2407, SB 1882, SB 1197, SB 1814, SB 618, SB 38, SB 393, SB 2065, SB 1371, SB 1394, SB 1365, SB 2243, SB 2226, SB 2039, SB 1919, SB 1895, SB 1598, SB 1493, SB 1810, SB 1791, SB 1706, SB 1644, SB 1238, SB 783, SB 458, SB 22, SB 651, SB 897, SB 1809, SB 1080, SB 745, SB 826, SB 989, SB 1320, SB 1437, SB 2320, SB 2289, SB 1171, SB 664, SB 1637, SB 27, SB 29, SB 857, SB 879, SB 922, SB 1098, SB 1453, SB 1536, SB 1741, SB 2188, SB 2230, SB 406, SB 689, SJR 12, SR 358, SR 361, SR 362, SR 368, SJR 74, SJR 76, SB 2408, SB 2409, SB 2461, SB 2462, SB 2463, SB 2464, SB 2465, SB 2466, SB 2467, SB 2468, SB 2469, SB 2470, SB 2471, SB 2472, SB 2473, SB 2474, SB 2475, SB 2476, SB 2477, SB 2478, SB 2479, SB 2480, SB 2481, SB 2482, SB 2483, SB 2484, SB 2485, SB 2486, SB 2487, SB 2488, SB 2489, SB 2490, SB 2491, SB 2492, SB 2493, SB 2494, SB 2495, SB 2496, SB 2497, SB 2498, SB 2499, SB 2500, SB 2501, SB 2502, SB 2503, SB 2504, SB 2505, SB 2506, SB 2507, SB 2508, SB 2509, SB 2510, SB 2511, SB 2512, SB 2513, SB 2514, SB 2515, SB 2516, SB 2517, SB 2518, SB 2519, SB 2520, SB 2521, SB 2522, SB 2523, SB 2524, SB 2525, SB 2526, SB 2527, SB 2528, SB 2529, SB 2530, SB 2531, SB 2532, SB 2533, SB 2534, SB 2535, SB 2536, SB 2537, SB 2538, SB 2539, SB 2540, SB 2541, SB 2542, SB 2543, SB 2544, SB 2545, SB 2546, SB 2547, SB 2548, SB 2549, SB 2550, SB 2551, SB 2552, SB 2553, SB 2554, SB 2555, SB 2556, SB 2557, SB 2558, SB 2560, SB 2561, SB 2562, SB 2563, SB 2565, SB 2566, SB 2567, SB 2568, SB 2569, SB 2570, SB 2571, SB 2572, SB 2573, SB 2574, SB 2575, SB 2576, SB 2577, SB 2578, SB 2579, SB 2580, SB 2581, SB 2582, SB 2583, SB 2584, SB 2585, SB 2586, SB 2587, SB 2588, SB 2589, SB 2590, SB 2591, SB 2592, SB 2593, SB 2594, SB 2595, SB 2596, SB 2597, SB 2598, SB 2599, SB 2600, SB 2601, SB 2602, SB 2603, SB 2604, SB 2605, SB 2606, SB 2607, SB 2608, SB 2609, SB 2610, SB 2611, SB 2612, SB 2613, SB 2614, SB 2615, SB 2616, SB 2617, SB 2618, SB 2619, SB 2620, SB 2621, SB 2622, SB 2625, SB 2626, SB 2627, SB 2628, SB 2629, SB 2630, SB 2631, SB 2632, SB 2633, SB 2634, SB 2635, SB 2636, SB 2637, SB 2638, SB 2639, SB 2640, SB 2641, SB 2642, SB 2643, SB 2644, SB 2645, SB 2646, SB 2647, SB 2648, SB 2649, SB 2650, SB 2651, SB 2652, SB 2653, SB 2654, SB 2655, SB 2656, SB 2657, SB 2658, SB 2659, SB 2660, SB 2661, SB 2662, SB 2663, SB 2664, SB 2665, SB 2666, SB 2667, SB 2668, SB 2669, SB 2670, SB 2671, SB 2672, SB 2673, SB 2674, SB 2675, SB 2676, SB 2677, SB 2678, SB 2679, SB 2680, SB 2681, SB 2682, SB 2683, SB 2684, SB 2685, SB 2686, SB 2687, SB 2688, SB 2689, SB 2690, SB 2691, SB 2692, SB 2693, SB 2694, SB 2695, SB 2696, SB 2697, SB 2698, SB 2699, SB 2700, SB 2701, SB 2702, SB 2703, SB 2704, SB 2705, SB 2706, SB 2707, SB 2708, SB 2709, SB 2710, SB 2711, SB 2712, SB 2713, SB 2714, SB 2715, SB 2716, SB 2717, SB 2718, SB 2719, SB 2720, SB 2721, SB 2723, SB 2724, SB 2725, SB 2726, SB 2727, SB 2728, SB 2729, SB 2730, SB 2731, SB 2732, SB 2733, SB 2734, SB 2735, SB 2736, SB 2737, SB 2738, SB 2739, SB 2740, SB 2741, SB 2742, SB 2743, SB 2744, SB 2745, SB 2746, SB 2747, SB 2748, SB 2749, SB 2750, SB 2751, SB 2752, SB 2753, SB 2754, SB 2755, SB 2756, SB 2757, SB 2758, SB 2759, SB 2760, SB 2761, SB 2762, SB 2763, SB 2764, SB 2765, SB 2766, SB 2767, SB 2768, SB 2769, SB 2770, SB 2771, SB 2772, SB 2773, SB 2774, SB 2775, SB 2776, SB 2777, SB 2778, SB 2779, SB 2780, SB 2781, SB 2782, SB 2783, SB 2784, SB 2785, SB 2786, SB 2787, SB 2788, SB 2789, SB 2790, SB 2791, SB 2792, SB 2793, SB 2794, SB 2795, SB 2796, SB 2797, SB 2798, SB 2799, SB 2800, SB 2967, SB 3034, HJR 1, HJR 4, HB 9, HB 13, HB 22, HB 135, HB 143, HB 195, HB 908, HB 1392, SB 861, SB 1013, SJR 74, SJR 76, SB 2408, SB 2409, SB 2461, SB 2462, SB 2463, SB 2464, SB 2465, SB 2466, SB 2467, SB 2468, SB 2469, SB 2470, SB 2471, SB 2472, SB 2473, SB 2474, SB 2475, SB 2476, SB 2477, SB 2478, SB 2479, SB 2480, SB 2481, SB 2482, SB 2483, SB 2484, SB 2485, SB 2486, SB 2487, SB 2488, SB 2489, SB 2490, SB 2491, SB 2492, SB 2493, SB 2494, SB 2495, SB 2496, SB 2497, SB 2498, SB 2499, SB 2500, SB 2501, SB 2502, SB 2503, SB 2504, SB 2505, SB 2506, SB 2507, SB 2508, SB 2509, SB 2510, SB 2511, SB 2512, SB 2513, SB 2514, SB 2515, SB 2516, SB 2517, SB 2518, SB 2519, SB 2520, SB 2521, SB 2522, SB 2523, SB 2524, SB 2525, SB 2526, SB 2527, SB 2528, SB 2529, SB 2530, SB 2531, SB 2532, SB 2533, SB 2534, SB 2535, SB 2536, SB 2537, SB 2538, SB 2539, SB 2540, SB 2541, SB 2542, SB 2543, SB 2544, SB 2545, SB 2546, SB 2547, SB 2548, SB 2549, SB 2550, SB 2551, SB 2552, SB 2553, SB 2554, SB 2555, SB 2556, SB 2557, SB 2558, SB 2560, SB 2561, SB 2562, SB 2563, SB 2565, SB 2566, SB 2567, SB 2568, SB 2569, SB 2570, SB 2571, SB 2572, SB 2573, SB 2574, SB 2575, SB 2576, SB 2577, SB 2578, SB 2579, SB 2580, SB 2581, SB 2582, SB 2583, SB 2584, SB 2585, SB 2586, SB 2587, SB 2588, SB 2589, SB 2590, SB 2591, SB 2592, SB 2593, SB 2594, SB 2595, SB 2596, SB 2597, SB 2598, SB 2599, SB 2600, SB 2601, SB 2602, SB 2603, SB 2604, SB 2605, SB 2606, SB 2607, SB 2608, SB 2609, SB 2610, SB 2611, SB 2612, SB 2613, SB 2614, SB 2615, SB 2616, SB 2617, SB 2618, SB 2619, SB 2620, SB 2621, SB 2622, SB 2625, SB 2626, SB 2627, SB 2628, SB 2629, SB 2630, SB 2631, SB 2632, SB 2633, SB 2634, SB 2635, SB 2636, SB 2637, SB 2638, SB 2639, SB 2640, SB 2641, SB 2642, SB 2643, SB 2644, SB 2645, SB 2646, SB 2647, SB 2648, SB 2649, SB 2650, SB 2651, SB 2652, SB 2653, SB 2654, SB 2655, SB 2656, SB 2657, SB 2658, SB 2659, SB 2660, SB 2661, SB 2662, SB 2663, SB 2664, SB 2665, SB 2666, SB 2667, SB 2668, SB 2669, SB 2670, SB 2671, SB 2672, SB 2673, SB 2674, SB 2675, SB 2676, SB 2677, SB 2678, SB 2679, SB 2680, SB 2681, SB 2682, SB 2683, SB 2684, SB 2685, SB 2686, SB 2687, SB 2688, SB 2689, SB 2690, SB 2691, SB 2692, SB 2693, SB 2694, SB 2695, SB 2696, SB 2697, SB 2698, SB 2699, SB 2700, SB 2701, SB 2702, SB 2703, SB 2704, SB 2705, SB 2706, SB 2707, SB 2708, SB 2709, SB 2710, SB 2711, SB 2712, SB 2713, SB 2714, SB 2715, SB 2716, SB 2717, SB 2718, SB 2719, SB 2720, SB 2721, SB 2723, SB 2724, SB 2725, SB 2726, SB 2727, SB 2728, SB 2729, SB 2730, SB 2731, SB 2732, SB 2733, SB 2734, SB 2735, SB 2736, SB 2737, SB 2738, SB 2739, SB 2740, SB 2741, SB 2742, SB 2743, SB 2744, SB 2745, SB 2746, SB 2747, SB 2748, SB 2749, SB 2750, SB 2751, SB 2752, SB 2753, SB 2754, SB 2755, SB 2756, SB 2757, SB 2758, SB 2759, SB 2760, SB 2761, SB 2762, SB 2763, SB 2764, SB 2765, SB 2766, SB 2767, SB 2768, SB 2769, SB 2770, SB 2771, SB 2772, SB 2773, SB 2774, SB 2775, SB 2776, SB 2777, SB 2778, SB 2779, SB 2780, SB 2781, SB 2782, SB 2783, SB 2784, SB 2785, SB 2786, SB 2787, SB 2788, SB 2789, SB 2790, SB 2791, SB 2792, SB 2793, SB 2794, SB 2795, SB 2796, SB 2797, SB 2798, SB 2799, SB 2800, SB 2967, SB 3034, HJR 1, HJR 4, HB 9, HB 13, HB 22, HB 135, HB 143, HB 195, HB 908, HB 1392, SB 861, SB 1013

Keywords: parental rights, education, constitutional amendment, school choice, child education, border security, southern border, federal immigration policy, illegal immigration, cartels, transnational cartels, fentanyl, drug trafficking, human trafficking, Operation Lone Star, Texas border, National Guard, state guard, border wall, border barriers

Summary: This meeting of the committee included comprehensive discussions about several bills, most notably SB24 and SB2043. The committee received public testimony both supporting and opposing SB24, illustrating the contentious nature of the proposed legislation. Many witnesses expressed their concerns about how the bill might impact marginalized communities, highlighting the need for a nuanced approach to the issues being addressed. The chair facilitated a respectful dialogue, reminding participants to focus on the facts rather than personal anecdotes.

Bills: SJR18, SCR9, SCR13, SB10, SB11, SB19, SB20, SB25, SB62, SB260, SB263, SB293, SB314, SB384, SB412, SB441, SB442, SB494, SB523, SB569, SB616, SB688, SB707, SB766, SB842, SB869, SB890, SB914, SB929, SB971, SB992, SB1066, SB1145, SB1621, SJR36, SJR18, SCR9, SCR13, SB616, SB565, SB384, SB372, SB495, SB842, SB971, SB1066, SB929, SB765, SB523, SB62, SB19, SB18, SB666, SB688, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB706, SB847, SB869, SB890, SB992, SB1145, SB494, SB290, SB766, SB11, SB10, SB13, SB263, SB412, SB20, SB441, SB442, SB1621, SB569, SB314, SB25, SB293, SB914, SB260, SB1248, SB740, SB14, SB1006, SB20, SB25, SB260, SB293, SB314, SB384, SB442, SB494, SB616, SB869, SB890, SB929, SB992, SB1145, SB1621, SR232, SR237, SR242, SB16, SB22

Keywords: capital gains, taxation, constitutional amendment, state revenue, individual investment, Supreme Court, judicial independence, Keep Nine, checks and balances, water rights, treaty compliance, Rio Grande, agriculture, drought, international water, Texas water supply, education, Ten Commandments, public schools, religious display

Bills: SJR18, SCR9, SCR13, SB10, SB11, SB19, SB20, SB25, SB62, SB260, SB263, SB293, SB314, SB384, SB412, SB441, SB442, SB494, SB523, SB569, SB616, SB688, SB707, SB766, SB842, SB869, SB890, SB914, SB929, SB971, SB992, SB1066, SB1145, SB1621, SJR36, SJR18, SCR9, SCR13, SB616, SB565, SB384, SB372, SB495, SB842, SB971, SB1066, SB929, SB765, SB523, SB62, SB19, SB18, SB666, SB688, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB706, SB847, SB869, SB890, SB992, SB1145, SB494, SB290, SB766, SB11, SB10, SB13, SB263, SB412, SB20, SB441, SB442, SB1621, SB569, SB314, SB25, SB293, SB914, SB260, SB1248, SB740, SB14, SB1006, SB20, SB25, SB260, SB293, SB314, SB384, SB442, SB494, SB616, SB869, SB890, SB929, SB992, SB1145, SB1621, SR232, SR237, SR242, SB16, SB22

Keywords: capital gains, taxation, constitutional amendment, state revenue, individual investment, Supreme Court, judicial independence, Keep Nine, checks and balances, water rights, treaty compliance, Rio Grande, agriculture, drought, international water, Texas water supply, education, Ten Commandments, public schools, religious display

Transcript Highlights:

• THREE AND THEY TRULY DO NOT BELONG WITHIN THIS BILL AND THERE WILL BE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND LIABILITY
• HAD A WAIVER YEARS AGO CALLED FSI WAIVER REFERRED TO AS A LITTLE WAIVER AND IT WAS KIND OF THE SAME PREMISE
• CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE PREMISE OF THIS BILL AND WHERE THIS COMES FROM TO ENSURE THE MISMANAGEMENT IS

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have three main coverages: liability, public assets, and auto.
• “The claims department manages claim intake, coverage analysis, investigation, liability determination
• And one of the premises is graduates in professions that we care about.
• And one of the premises is graduates in professions that we care about.
• It's a county that has a statement of net position that has zero liabilities.

Summary: The committee convened, approved the prior meeting minutes, and received a memo summarizing major audit items. The State Auditor’s office and outside auditors then presented a series of audits, many of which were clean with unmodified opinions and no findings, including the Bank of North Dakota, the Guaranteed Student Loan Program, the Office of the Governor, the State Treasurer, the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Environmental Quality, Lake Region State College, and the Office of the Governor. The North Dakota Stockmen’s Association audit was also clean overall, but it repeated findings about limited segregation of duties and auditor assistance in preparing financial statements, which the auditor said were expected to continue because of the organization’s small size. Committee members asked about out-of-state board addresses, and the association explained those members were North Dakota residents using South Dakota mailing addresses. Several audits did include findings. The Council on the Arts audit identified two issues: payroll charged to federal awards without supporting time records, and $12,825 in Cultural Endowment Fund spending that was not allowable under state law, including staff training, retreats, and executive director candidate travel. The Department of Public Instruction audit found unsupported scholarship applications in the paraprofessional-to-teacher program, but additional testing confirmed the funds were credited properly and students completed required school district work, so no improper payments were identified. The University of North Dakota audit found a lack of documentation and transparency in School of Law admissions decisions; the auditor said the law school used a holistic process but did not keep notes or evaluation tools to show why applicants were admitted, waitlisted, or denied. UND leadership said the school is in good standing with the American Bar Association and agreed better documentation is needed, and the auditor said the issue was the missing documentation, not ABA accreditation itself. The most extensive discussion centered on the North Dakota Racing Commission audit, which found four findings: overspending the promotion fund’s 25% operating cap, grant conditions not being met, improper breeder fund awards, and improper procurement. The auditor said promotion fund spending exceeded the cap by $327,447 and the fund balance dropped sharply over the audit period. Racing Commission director Bruce Johnson said the agency had become complacent, that grant requests were treated as routine, and that controls and documentation need to be tightened. He also explained that the breeder fund overpayments involved two horses whose ownership transfers were not properly documented before racing, and that the procurement issue stemmed from an advertising contract that proceeded without proper written procurement procedures after a misunderstanding with the State Procurement Office. The auditor said the Racing Commission will now be audited every two years because of the findings. The committee also received updates on Dakota College at Bottineau’s bank reconciliations, which Minot State University said had been brought current after an 18-month backlog, with only one account still needing cleanup; members asked for a written report on the corrective actions. The North Dakota Fair Foundation was reported to have dissolved, with remaining funds transferred to another nonprofit account for continued support of the state fair. Finally, the Department of Public Instruction provided an update on school meal debt, revising the earlier estimate to about $1.1 million based on incomplete district survey responses, and said the Anti-Lunch Shaming law likely increased meal debt because schools must feed students regardless of account balance. Members discussed the need for a more accurate year-end debt figure and possible future reporting at a later committee meeting.