Transcript Highlights:

• It's that last sentence on lines 12 through 14 on page two that goes and clarifies that contributions
• <00:12:51.279> It's<00:12:51.600> that That last sentence on lines 12 through 14 on
• something from my memo, for example, what does that program do or when was that program's statute sentence
• I think one of the other benchmarks was the split between men and women in the workforce.
• other benchmarks was um the split other benchmarks was um the split between<00:47:36.079> men

Keywords: 916, all

Bills: HB3281, HB3320, HB3081, HB3127, HB3128, HB3498, HB2035, HB3765, HB4324, HB3678, HB4170, HB3495, HB3040, HB3062, HB4140, HB4106, HB4109, HB4104, HB3581, HB3620, HB3942, HB3279, HB3378, HB3383, HB3413, HB3414, HB3415, HB3420, HB3130, HB3700, HB3379, HB3129, HB3132, HB3315, HB2950, HB3242, HB3041, HB4428, HB4429, HB1064, HB3265, HB3721, HB3028, HB3313, HB3588, HB3020, HB3724, HB3392, HB3466, HB4060, HJR1074, HB3501, HJR1070, HB3794, HB3796, HB3928, HB2955, HB4453, HB4460, HB4128, HB3659, HB3270, HB3145

Keywords: administrative procedures, guidance documents, transparency, public inspection, rulemaking, sunset laws, statutory entities, regulatory compliance, emergency provisions, board re-creation, fire extinguisher, licensing, public safety, age qualification, State Fire Marshal, medical marijuana, employment rights, safety-sensitive positions, workplace policies, public assistance

Transcript Highlights:

• It splits the communities I represent in Tampa Bay, and it ties St. Petersburg to Hardee County.
• Is it race-neutral to split up communities made up largely of minority voters in ways?
• To split up communities made up largely of minority voters in ways that geographically make no sense
• It splits more counties, and it deviates from existing boundaries. You've heard it.
• They've talked about how Tampa is split. And they also have talked about how Broward is split.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• There's no partisan split there. You heard Senator Cream before.
• There's no partisan split there. You heard Senator Cream before. We do like to be first, so.
• But we managed to do that with HIPAA, and it seems to me you're splitting hairs.
• What was the other sentence you wanted to share with us? Oh, thanks. I think it's important.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee hearing focused on a package of Massachusetts privacy and technology bills, especially measures to ban the sale of location data, establish a comprehensive consumer data privacy law, and regulate biometric recognition and surveillance pricing. Chairs and sponsors argued that self-regulation has failed, that data brokers and large tech companies routinely collect and monetize sensitive information, and that state action is needed because federal protections are weak or absent. Several speakers tied the bills to reproductive health, gender-affirming care, domestic violence, children’s data, and other sensitive uses of location and biometric information. Supporters included legislators and advocates who backed H. 86/S. 197 (Location Shield), H. 78/S. 45/H. 104/S. 29 (comprehensive privacy bills), H. 99/S. 47 (surveillance pricing in grocery stores), and H. 36/S. 36 (biometric recognition accountability). They emphasized data minimization, bans on selling sensitive data, consumer rights to access, delete, and opt out, and in some cases a private right of action. Several witnesses said Massachusetts should lead or align with other states, while others argued that stronger protections are needed because data can be weaponized by stalkers, anti-abortion actors, abusive partners, insurers, or law enforcement. Industry and coalition witnesses urged the committee to favor a more standardized, interoperable framework modeled on laws already adopted in other states, warning that novel definitions, data-minimization rules, and private rights of action could create compliance burdens, confusion, and costs for businesses, including small businesses. They argued that entity-level exemptions for sectors already covered by federal laws like HIPAA or GLBA promote consistency, and that Attorney General enforcement is preferable to private lawsuits. Committee members questioned witnesses on patchwork concerns, the scope of exemptions, and whether the proposed bills would harm or help consumers and small businesses. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing; written testimony was noted as due later, and the committee continued taking testimony from multiple panels and virtual witnesses.

Transcript Highlights:

• Timelines can change after our product ships, requiring that support period to be split on packaging,
• He was just sentenced to 33 years in prison for directing his partner to take explicit photographs of

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Timelines can change after our product ships, requiring that the support period be split on packaging
• He was just sentenced to 33 years in prison for directing his partner to take explicit photographs of

Summary: The committee began as a subcommittee due to the lack of a quorum and heard several privacy- and technology-related measures. The first item was H.R. 117, a resolution urging Congress to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The author and supporters argued the law is outdated and shields platforms from accountability for harms such as harassment, exploitation, scams, and other online abuse. Witnesses, including a survivor parent and a gender justice advocate, described harms to children, women, and LGBTQ people and urged a two-year sunset to force federal reform. Some members supported the resolution as a call for federal action, while one member said he could not support it because the resolution was too general and lacked specificity about the reforms being sought. No vote was taken because the committee lacked a quorum. The committee then heard SB 898, which would require manufacturers of connected consumer products to disclose how long they will support the software and to notify consumers when products approach end of life. The author said consumers deserve transparency about security updates and continued functionality, and supporters from Consumer Reports and PIRG emphasized cybersecurity risks, consumer confusion, and electronic waste from unsupported devices. Opponents, including business and industry groups, raised concerns about enforcement through the unfair competition law, notice burdens, labeling issues, and compliance challenges, especially for products with long support windows or third-party dependencies. One member expressed support, noting the cybersecurity risks of end-of-life devices, but again no vote was taken because there was no quorum. The committee also heard SB 435, which would narrow the CCPA definition of publicly available information to limit how businesses classify data as public. The author and supporters said the bill would close a loophole that allows data brokers and others to monetize personal information without meaningful consent and could help prevent surveillance and misuse of data, including by government agencies. Opponents argued the bill would upset the balance between privacy and the free flow of information, create compliance uncertainty, and retroactively reclassify information that businesses reasonably believed was public. Some members said they supported the goal of stronger privacy protections, while others said the bill was too broad. The committee again could not vote due to the lack of a quorum. Later, the committee heard SB 923, which would expand Californians’ right to delete personal information to cover data obtained from third parties and require online businesses to offer a web form or similar method for deletion requests. Supporters, including the California Privacy Protection Agency and consumer advocates, said the bill would make deletion rights meaningful and better address data broker practices. Opponents sought an opt-out-of-processing alternative and raised operational and legal concerns, but supporters said deletion is not the same as retention or processing limits. Members largely spoke in favor of the bill’s privacy goals, but no action was taken. The committee also heard SB 947, the “No Robo Bosses Act,” which would require human review for certain automated employment decisions and limit predictive analysis in workplace discipline and termination. Labor groups supported the bill as a safeguard against biased or erroneous AI-driven decisions, while business, public employer, and local government groups opposed it as overbroad and burdensome. Members voiced support for human oversight in employment decisions, but the item was not voted on because the committee still lacked a quorum. Finally, the committee began hearing SB 1114, the SOGI Data Privacy Act, which would restrict disclosure of sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex data to federal agencies absent a court order or legal requirement; the author and witness framed it as a response to federal efforts to obtain sensitive LGBTQ-related data.

Transcript Highlights:

• But if we're not doing it, and I know I'm kind of splitting hairs here, but if we're not doing it, then
• And if we do choose to appropriate line eight, we have one sentence that allows the commission to start

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But if we're not doing it, and I know I'm kind of splitting hairs here, but if we're not doing it, then
• “And if we do choose to appropriate line eight, we have one sentence that allows the commission to start

Summary: The House convened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, approved the House Journal for the 64th day by a 125-0 roll call vote, and then spent much of the morning on personal privileges and introductions of guests, interns, students, and special recognitions. Members welcomed school groups, interns, a Savannah Bananas guest, and several family members, and also noted birthdays and Mother’s Day greetings. On legislation, the chamber first agreed to go to conference on Senate Substitute for Senate Bill 1421, appointing a House conference committee. The House then took up Senate Bill 1000, which reauthorizes the Missouri Tourism Supplemental Revenue Fund and updates outdated tourism funding language; members from both parties spoke in support of tourism as an economic driver, and the bill passed 136-6. The House also considered House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1020, an omnibus Department of Revenue bill addressing fee office contracting, vehicle registration and related penalties, Real ID document retention, five-year license plates, and emissions-related provisions. Members adopted amendments reducing late-registration penalties, making document retention opt-in, restoring a five-year plate option, and removing cosmetic damage as a basis for rejecting rebuilt vehicles; despite debate over emissions testing and air quality, the bill passed 130-10. The chamber then moved to House Committee Substitute for Senate Bills 835 and 1111, a combined judiciary/civil legislation package. Members described it as a vehicle for several vetted measures, including anti-assignment-of-benefits language for insurance claims, the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, and court administration changes such as workers’ compensation procedures, judgeships, automation fees, law library surcharges, and expungement fund provisions. Amendments were offered and adopted to adjust attorney-fee language in the anti-SLAPP provisions and to add a St. Louis police legal-expense-fund provision, though the latter drew objections over procedure and whether it had received a hearing. The transcript cuts off while debate on that amendment is still underway, and no final vote on the bill is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• agreement was very clear: it includes no early release, includes no changes to the current incarceration sentences
• it's just, it was probably one of those moments that you needed a budget like this and you needed a split

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The Board of Equalization is split into four boards, and then there is the chair.
• When you get a TPP report, it's basically describes a project in two sentences and gives you a date.

Summary: The committee first heard AB 13, which would restructure the CPUC to increase legislative oversight, add legislative liaisons, require more detailed and timely reporting on rate-setting decisions, and add a public advocate member. The author and supporters argued the bill would improve transparency, accountability, and geographic diversity in CPUC decision-making amid rising utility rates. Witnesses from TURN, San Joaquin County, SDG&E, and former CPUC Commissioner Loretta Lynch offered support or support-in-principle, while no opposition testimony was presented. Members generally praised the bill’s transparency goals, and AB 13 passed 10-0 to Appropriations, with the roll left open for absent members. The committee then adopted the 2025-2026 committee rules and approved three consent items: AB 61, AB 365, and AB 406. The next bill, AB 99, would cap investor-owned utility rate increases above inflation except for specified costs such as safety, modernization, and fuel/commodity costs. The author and supporters, including a representative of the California Senior Legislature, said the bill was needed to protect ratepayers, especially seniors and low-income customers, from repeated rate hikes. Opposition came from utility labor, utilities, the Chamber of Commerce, and others, who argued the bill was too simplistic, could suppress labor costs, and did not account for major cost drivers such as wildfire mitigation, mandates, and net metering. Several members supported moving the bill forward as a starting point on affordability, while others criticized it as overly blunt. AB 99 passed 11-0 to Appropriations, with the roll left open. The hearing then shifted to an informational panel on strategies to reduce California transmission costs. A Public Advocates Office staffer described a growing backlog of approved-but-unbuilt transmission projects, rising transmission access charges, and long project timelines driven largely by utility pre-application and construction periods. Panelists from Net Zero California and consulting firms presented research suggesting that public financing or public-private partnership lease models could reduce transmission costs by lowering financing, tax, and capital costs, with estimated savings of up to 57% and as much as $123 billion over 40 years. PG&E’s representative said the utility is already pursuing federal loan guarantees, grants, and a public-private partnership with Citizens Energy, but warned that state ownership could create tax, wildfire-liability, and governance risks. Members asked about the CPUC’s role, the causes of delays, and whether public financing could complement existing competitive solicitation processes.

Transcript Highlights:

• One, your last sentence. I'll just, I'll go ahead and let Carson go. Okay. Hi, my name is.
• She talks about how she has had to sit in chairs with giant cracks splitting them in half. half that

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Since the first sentence of the 14th Amendment of that clause says we will count each whole person, I
• And I think our colleagues are split on this, and so I want a resolution.

Transcript Highlights:

• There'll be 75 and then the 25% is split between the state and the counties, 12% each.
• There'll be 75 and then the 25% is split between the state and the counties, 12% each.
• There'll be 75 and then the 25% is split between the state and the counties, 12% each.
• There'll be 75 and then the 25% is split between the state and the counties, 12% each.
• There'll be 75 and then the 25% is split between the state and the counties, 12% each.

Keywords: Appropriations - Room 216, 2 February, 2026; 1:30 PM, 925, all

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 2189, described as a transfer bill that brings forward code sections tied to the various funds used to compose the budget. With no questions, the committee adopted a title sufficient do pass motion and reported the bill. The committee then considered Senate Bill 2190, which would raise Mississippi’s rainy day fund cap from 10% to 15% of general fund revenue. The chair explained that the change would gradually build the reserve over time to a little over $1 billion, and clarified in response to questions that the figure did not include money being used for PERS or capex. The bill received a title sufficient do pass recommendation. Next, Senate Bill 2717 was presented as a modernization of the My Kids youth court information system, which was described as 35 to 40 years old and antiquated. Senator Wiggins said the bill follows an audit and would support an $8 million replacement effort, with a three-year implementation and training period, and that the new system would be cloud-based and allow better data sharing among youth court-related agencies while preserving county-level protections. Senators raised concerns about prior ARPA funding, disclosure of youth court records, and the effect of a repealer in current law; Wiggins and others said related disclosure issues were being addressed in separate Judiciary A bills. The committee then voted title sufficient do pass. The committee also advanced Senate Bill 2896, a DPS-requested measure tied to pay increases for highway patrol, Bureau of Narcotics, and Bureau of Investigation personnel, with the chair saying the proposal would keep the bill alive through a reverse repealer in the committee substitute. Finally, the committee considered companion bills Senate Bills 2898 and 2924 to provide $20 million to MEMA’s Disaster Assistance Trust Fund in response to the recent ice storm and to cover state disaster expenses. Members discussed federal disaster reimbursement rules, the distinction between individual assistance and public assistance, insurance requirements, and the need for local governments to document eligible expenses. Both bills were adopted by title sufficient do pass, and the committee also passed Senate Bill 2917, which changes Mississippi Valley State University’s request from a new residence hall to repair and renovation of existing residence halls. The chair then set remaining bills aside for a later meeting and the committee rose and reported.

Transcript Highlights:

• We do not study all school district splits. There is a threshold of value that we study.
• Um, so there may be a split in a county that's just too small.
• In total, we had 113 school district splits that were invalid.
• So when I refer to a split roll, that's what we're talking about.
• Um, one policy concern is, is increasing the split role, um, situation.

Transcript Highlights:

• This year we studied 694 school district splits.
• So there may be a split in a county that's just too small.
• In total, we had 113 school district splits that were invalid.
• So that would close our split.
• One policy concern is increasing the split role situation.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill follows the longstanding 40-40-20 split for state parks, DNR metro parks, and the greater Minnesota
• Since this one doesn't have a recommendation from anyone or a standing uh split like the 40-40-20, I'll
• Since this one doesn't have a recommendation from anyone or a standing uh split like the 40-40-20, I'll
• <00:09:36.560> like<00:09:36.720> the anyone or a standing uh split like the anyone
• or a standing uh split like the 4420,<00:09:37.519> I'll<00:09:37.680> go<00:09:37.839

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House File 2563, the Omnibus Legacy Bill, was presented as a roughly $779 million package funding projects across Minnesota through the four Legacy funds: Outdoor Heritage, Clean Water, Parks and Trails, and Arts and Cultural Heritage. Chairs Vang and McDonald described the bill as a responsible one-time spending measure with no ongoing base funding, emphasizing habitat restoration, water protection, parks and trails, and arts and cultural heritage. Nonpartisan staff then walked through the spreadsheet, explaining that the bill largely follows the recommendations of the relevant councils and governor, with some additions such as a Wilderness Inquiry partnership, an Ash River sewer extension, competitive grant funding, and several arts and history projects. Staff highlighted the major allocations and structure of the bill: Outdoor Heritage funding for land and habitat projects, Clean Water funding for water-quality work, Parks and Trails funding following the traditional 40-40-20 split, and Arts and Cultural Heritage funding for the State Arts Board, Minnesota Historical Society, Humanities Center, Indian Affairs Council, Department of Education, and other recipients. They also noted policy provisions requiring Clean Water Council recommendations to be broken out by fiscal year, requiring recent 990 forms for arts grantees, limiting arts funds from being used for capital construction except in specified cases, and extending a prior appropriation for the Sunni Lee memorial project. Members asked about land acquisition, the new 990 requirement, and reduced funding for children’s museums; chairs and staff responded that Outdoor Heritage includes land acquisition, the 990 is simply a documentation requirement, and children’s museum funding is lower because more money is now placed in a competitive grant pool. The chairs said the bill reflects compromise and an effort to keep the bill relatively clean of earmarks, while also noting that a Department of Revenue transfer of more than $31 million from legacy funds affected available funding and forced difficult choices. After discussion, the committee laid the bill over, with the chair noting it was also being done in honor of Representative Mary Murphy.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so this language would be one simple sentence that just says the documents, if they're not updated
• A sentence, maybe a word.
• President, members, I want to redirect you back to the amendment language, one sentence, very simple,
• President, members, I want to redirect you back to the amendment language: one sentence, very simple,
• ,<01:43:16.320> very language, one sentence, very language, one sentence, very simple,<01:

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It lines, the way the lines split and crack some of the communities I represent in Tampa Bay, and how
• Is it race-neutral to split up communities made up largely of minority voters in ways?
• To split up communities made up largely of minority voters in ways that geographically make no sense
• It splits more counties, and it deviates from existing boundaries. You've heard it.
• They've talked about how Tampa is split. And they also have talked about how Broward is split.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Congressional District 9 in the map before us, I can clearly see that the new lines were drawn to split
• It lines, the way the lines split and crack some of the communities I represent in Tampa Bay and how
• Are we to understand that these race-neutral maps coincidentally split up predominantly Black voters
• It splits more counties, and it deviates from existing boundaries. You've heard it.
• They've talked about how Tampa is split. And they also have talked about how Broward is split.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• The vast majority of those who are using the SNAP program actually use split tender.
• The vast majority of those who are using the SNAP program actually use split tender.
• Um second of all they are split tender.
• Now, remember, we had a testifier state that 60% of purchases are split purchases using SNAP benefits
• purchases using of purchases are split purchases using SNAP<00:29:38.560> benefits.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House File 3603, and Representative Olson first offered and had adopted an A1 author’s amendment. Olson then explained that the bill would direct the Commissioner of Children, Youth and Families to seek a USDA waiver allowing Minnesota to bar SNAP purchases of items subject to state sales tax, such as prepared foods, chips, soft drinks, and candy. He argued the goal was to promote healthier nutrition, noted that other states have similar waivers, and said the change could help Minnesota qualify for significant federal rural health care funding. Public testimony was divided. Patrick Garofalo of the Minnesota Grocers Association opposed the bill, saying SNAP is a supplemental program and that the proposal would be difficult to administer at retail stores, create confusion, and expose retailers to serious penalties for mistakes. He argued the state tax code is not a nutrition standard and pointed out inconsistencies, such as some candy-like products still being taxable or some healthy items being treated as prepared food. Will Hagen of Minnesota Retailers also opposed the bill, warning it would require costly point-of-sale changes, retraining, and would turn store employees into enforcers while creating cross-border shopping problems. Matt Schmidt of the American First Policy Institute supported the concept, saying SNAP should emphasize nutrition and that restricting unhealthy purchases would reduce taxpayer subsidies for junk food and soda. Members then debated the bill’s logic and practicality, including questions about which snacks would or would not be allowed under the tax-based standard. Representative Sencer-Mura offered an H2 amendment, framed as applying the same restrictions to legislators’ own per diem spending; Representative Hansen responded that the comparison was not equivalent and raised concerns about household circumstances and accessibility. The H2 amendment was put to a vote and did not prevail. The committee then continued member discussion on the bill.