Bills: HB3312, HB3700, HB2981, HB2961, HB3016, HB4478, HB4326, HB3025, HB3710, HB4125, HB2951, HB3082, HB4142, HB4106, HB1752, HB3268, HB4440, HJR1067, SB1144, SB1145, SB1146, SB1147, SB1148, SB1156, SB1157, SB1158, SB1159, SB1161, SB1162, SB1163, SB1164, SB1165, SB1166, SB1149, SB1167, HJR1024, SB1174, SB1175, SB1176, HB3419, HB3748, HB4335, HB3057, HB3279, HB4428, HB3420, HB3040, HB4140, HB1638, HB3298, HB4113, HB1082, HB4301, HB3269, HB3587, HB4226, HB4324, HB4339, HB4342, HB3278, HB3996, HB4236, HB4352

Keywords: firearm safety, public schools, education policy, student safety, gun control, opt-out option, grading system, student assessment, academic integrity, state funding, opinion conduct, open meetings, school boards, transparency, public access, education governance, HB2961, TSgt Marshal Dakota Roberts Gold Star Survivor Act, Gold Star family, Gold Star recipient

Bills: HB3312, HB3700, HB2981, HB2961, HB3016, HB4478, HB4326, HB3025, HB3710, HB4125, HB2951, HB3082, HB4142, HB4106, HB1752, HB3268, HB4440, HJR1067, SB1144, SB1145, SB1146, SB1147, SB1148, SB1156, SB1157, SB1158, SB1159, SB1161, SB1162, SB1163, SB1164, SB1165, SB1166, SB1149, SB1167, HJR1024, SB1174, SB1175, SB1176, HB3419, HB3748, HB4335, HB3057, HB3279, HB4428, HB3420, HB3040, HB4140, HB1638, HB3298, HB4113, HB1082, HB4301, HB3269, HB3587, HB4226, HB4324, HB4339, HB4342, HB3278, HB3996, HB4236, HB4352

Keywords: firearm safety, public schools, education policy, student safety, gun control, opt-out option, grading system, student assessment, academic integrity, state funding, opinion conduct, open meetings, school boards, transparency, public access, education governance, HB2961, TSgt Marshal Dakota Roberts Gold Star Survivor Act, Gold Star family, Gold Star recipient

Transcript Highlights:

• or a constable from entering into a contract to determine whether or not he or she is guilty of a crime

Bills: SB 3, SB 16, SB 2, SB 5, SB 10, HB17, SB 54, SB 9, SB 7, SB 17, SB 4, HB8, HB25, HB26, HB192, HB8, HB25, HB26, HB48, HB149, HB192, HB254, HB17, SB54, SB9, SB7, SB17, SB4, SB3, SB16, SB2, SB5, SB10

Keywords: flash flood, flood warning, outdoor warning siren, emergency alert, disaster preparedness, flood mitigation, Hill Country floods, Texas Water Development Board, municipalities, counties, local government mandate, public safety, grant program, backup power, weather siren, emergency management, flood-prone area, warning system, real property theft, real property fraud

Bills: SB 3, SB 16, SB 2, SB 5, SB 10, HB17, SB 54, SB 9, SB 7, SB 17, SB 4, HB8, HB25, HB26, HB192, HB8, HB25, HB26, HB48, HB149, HB192, HB254, HB17, SB54, SB9, SB7, SB17, SB4, SB3, SB16, SB2, SB5, SB10

Keywords: flash flood, flood warning, outdoor warning siren, emergency alert, disaster preparedness, flood mitigation, Hill Country floods, Texas Water Development Board, municipalities, counties, local government mandate, public safety, grant program, backup power, weather siren, emergency management, flood-prone area, warning system, real property theft, real property fraud

Bills: SB 3, SB 16, SB 2, SB 5, SB 10, HB17, SB 54, SB 9, SB 7, SB 17, SB 4, HB8, HB25, HB26, HB192, HB8, HB25, HB26, HB48, HB149, HB192, HB254, HB17, SB54, SB9, SB7, SB17, SB4, SB3, SB16, SB2, SB5, SB10

Keywords: flash flood, flood warning, outdoor warning siren, emergency alert, disaster preparedness, flood mitigation, Hill Country floods, Texas Water Development Board, municipalities, counties, local government mandate, public safety, grant program, backup power, weather siren, emergency management, flood-prone area, warning system, real property theft, real property fraud

Transcript Highlights:

• overall is just not representative of the patients that they're trying to serve, which really can be a deterrent

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Massachusetts Commission on the Status of Persons with Disabilities subcommittee on workforce supports met with Chair Andrew Lerault presiding. Members completed roll call, approved the August 2025 minutes, and then heard a presentation from Amy Doyle, director of the Behavioral Health Workforce Center at the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission. Doyle described the center’s launch in September 2024 and its legislative mandate to study behavioral health payment rates, workforce needs, and licensure/certification barriers, with an emphasis on recruitment, retention, capacity building, diversity/equity, and sustainability. She also shared data on unmet behavioral health needs, ED boarding, workforce shortages, aging and turnover in nursing and direct care, and the need to improve data collection on non-licensed workers and populations such as people with developmental disabilities and autism. Committee members asked questions about what provider types were included in the workforce data and whether DDS-related residential and direct support roles were captured. Doyle said the center is still working to define and measure the full behavioral health workforce, including non-licensed roles, and welcomed follow-up on missing data sources. Members suggested additional sources such as CHIA and the Association of Developmental Disability Providers’ workforce survey. Doyle noted that the center is working with CHIA and that new licensure renewal surveys for behavioral health and allied mental health professionals will begin in 2025, which should improve future workforce data. The discussion also touched on the Health Policy Commission’s broader workforce findings, including nurse attrition, burnout, low wages, and the importance of career ladders and advanced training. Doyle said the center’s first policy recommendations will come from its rate study, expected in the next one to two months, and will likely focus on capacity building and sustainability. After the presentation, members thanked Doyle and discussed subcommittee leadership. Chair Lerault announced he was stepping down, and Chris White volunteered to serve as co-chair; the committee agreed to move forward with that arrangement and to revisit FY26 goals once new leadership is in place. The meeting then adjourned by motion and second.

Transcript Highlights:

• Again, I would say this is a bit preemptive and a bit of a deterrent.

Bills: HB1245, HB2588, HB3024, HB3172, HB3279, HB3919, HB3306, HB3383, HB3431, HB3435, HB4352, HB3883, HB3942, HB4193, HB4203, HB4303, HB4311, HB4484

Keywords: retirement, pension, public employees, Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System, benefits, survivorship, contribution rates, disability retirement, owners associations, membership requirements, property ownership, board governance, residency requirements, salary increase, state employees, public finance, bonus limits, job performance, Fair Banking Act, financial institutions

Transcript Highlights:

• I do believe that as a parent, if my child has an STI and I’m not notified, there are crimes that could
• reporting situation going on, when you have a minor child come to you who has an STD, it is likely that a crime
• could have been committed against... ...who has an STD, it is likely that a crime could have been committed
• Under federal law, any crime in a nursing home must be reported.
• But that should never be a deterrent for undoing a wrong.

Summary: The committee first took up CS/SB 1606 on patient access to records. The sponsor explained that the bill, as amended, would align Florida law more closely with HIPAA by defining “designated record set,” requiring providers to furnish requested records within set timeframes, allowing a limited extension with notice, and requiring records to be produced in the requested form if readily producible. Several members asked about patient portals, legal representatives, and whether the bill affected meaningful-use rules or post-mortem access. Multiple witnesses opposed the bill, arguing it could create cybersecurity risks, conflict with existing privacy rules, and burden providers; supporters said it would improve patient access and consistency. The committee adopted the amendment and then reported the bill favorably. The committee then considered CS/SB 712 on construction regulations. The bill would direct DEP to establish rules for synthetic turf and limit local governments from banning it if state rules are followed, while also addressing change orders, public works bidding, elevator rails, alarm contractor work, building code updates, spaceport exemptions, permit document limits, and single-trade inspections. Amendments removed the pool and spa contractor provisions and the tall mass timber language. Testimony on the bill centered heavily on the pool industry, with contractors and the Florida Swimming Pool Association opposing expansion of scope to general and building contractors, while some speakers supported other parts of the bill. After adopting the amendments, the committee reported the bill favorably. Finally, the committee heard CS/SB 1288 on parental rights. The bill would allow minors to be tested for STDs without parental consent but require parental consent for treatment, expand parents’ rights to access records and control certain health decisions, and restrict health care services, medical procedures, and biofeedback devices for minors absent consent or an exception. An amendment moved survey and questionnaire provisions into the education code, added an explicit court-order exception, clarified DNA and biofeedback provisions, and added emergency behavioral health exceptions. The committee heard extensive public testimony both for and against the bill, with supporters emphasizing parental authority and opponents warning it could delay STI treatment, mental health care, and other services for vulnerable minors. The transcript ends during public testimony on the bill, before any final committee action is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• I do believe that as a parent, if my child has an STI and I'm not notified, there are crimes that could
• reporting situation going on, when you have a minor child come to you who has an STD, it is likely that a crime
• could have been committed against that child. ...who has an STD, it is likely that a crime could have
• Under federal law, any crime in a nursing home must be reported.
• But that should never be a deterrent for undoing a wrong.

Summary: The committee first took up CS/SB 1606 on patient access to records. Sponsor Senator Grall explained an amendment that aligned the bill more closely with HIPAA by defining “designated record set,” allowing a 14-day extension, and requiring records to be produced in the requested form if readily producible. Several senators asked about patient portals, legal representatives, and whether the bill applied post-mortem; Grall said the bill was limited to authorized access during the patient’s life. Testimony was largely opposed, with health information and provider groups warning that the bill could create cybersecurity risks, conflict with HIPAA and meaningful-use rules, burden facilities, and improperly broaden access to portals and sensitive records. Supporters argued it would improve patient access and speed. The amendment was adopted, and the bill was reported favorably by roll call vote after debate on the bill as amended. The committee then considered CS/SB 712 on construction regulations. Grall described provisions on synthetic turf, change orders, public works bidding, elevator rails, alarm contractor scope, tall mass timber, pool and spa contractor scope, spaceport exemptions, permit document limits, and solar/energy storage inspections. Two amendments were adopted: one removed pool and spa contractor language and delayed the change-order provision until July 1, 2025; the other removed the tall mass timber section. Pool contractors testified against the scope expansion in the original bill, while others supported the remaining provisions. Senators raised concerns about the Florida Building Commission process and how the public-works language might affect small-business participation, but the bill as amended was ultimately reported favorably. Finally, the committee heard CS/SB 1288 on parental rights. Grall said the bill would require parental consent for most minor health care decisions, allow parental access to records, restrict surveys/questionnaires, and limit use of biofeedback devices, while preserving certain exceptions such as emergency care and STD testing. An amendment clarified questionnaire opt-outs for K-12 students, added court-order exceptions, addressed DNA sampling for criminal investigations, refined biofeedback language, and added emergency behavioral health exceptions; it was adopted. The bill drew extensive testimony both for and against: supporters said it restored parental authority and protected children from decisions they are not equipped to make, while opponents argued it would endanger minors seeking confidential STI, mental health, or abuse-related care, especially in unsafe homes. Senators also debated whether the bill would conflict with existing laws and whether it could leave some minors untreated. The transcript ends during continued public testimony on the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Would you say that the fines in and of themselves help serve as a deterrent, or to prevent this activity
• help<01:13:55.840> serve<01:13:56.080> as<01:13:56.240> a<01:13:56.320> deterrent
• <01:13:57.760> um themselves help serve as a deterrent um themselves help serve as a deterrent

Bills: SB3253, SB2401, SB3169, SB17, SB3014, SB3032, SB1432, SB2002, SB2972, SB3247

Keywords: conservation, endangered species, wildlife preservation, native birds, biodiversity, sanctuary, nonprofit, DLNR, agricultural district, land use, chapter 195D, chapter 205, chapter 42F, state funding, public purpose, habitat restoration, predator-free sanctuary, ecosystem restoration, Zealandia, wildlife refuge

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land heard testimony on SB 5253 SD2 relating to conservation and SB 2401 relating to regional shoreline mitigation district, with the chair emphasizing short testimony limits and the need to finish before session. On SB 5253, DLNR said it stood on its written testimony and answered questions about the bill’s proposed nonprofit endangered species sanctuary. Members asked whether existing entities or agreements, such as land trusts, private landowners, and DLNR safe harbor agreements, could accomplish similar conservation goals without creating a new entity. DLNR said similar work already exists, but it was not aware of a comparable sanctuary model in the state. A member also questioned language suggesting for-profit businesses in the sanctuary, and DLNR said the intent appeared to be sales of outreach or similar materials, though it agreed that such activities could be handled by a nonprofit. The bulk of the hearing focused on SB 2401, which would create a regional shoreline adaptation/mitigation framework. The Department of the Attorney General said it had concerns about inconsistent use of the terms “mitigation” and “adaptation,” warning of possible title-subject issues. DLNR said it was neutral on the terminology and more concerned with the substance, and noted that the bill would not waive permits; any plan would still require environmental review and applicable state and county permits. DLNR also supported OHA’s recommendation to consider impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during regional planning, and said the bill’s language on temporary shoreline protection measures could help address the gap between emergency permits and longer-term planning while avoiding a hardening-only approach. The Office of Planning supported the regional planning concept but noted it is not a regulatory agency and would need to work with DLNR and the Land Board. OHA supported the bill’s planning-based approach but recommended amendments to require assessment of impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during plan development and to clarify that environmental review would still apply at the project level. Testifiers from the Ka‘anapali Steering Committee strongly supported the bill, saying it would provide a regional framework for ongoing erosion problems while preserving full regulatory authority and normal permitting, and they proposed amendments to standardize terminology, create a limited pathway for temporary shoreline protection, and address ownership and maintenance responsibilities. Members discussed the meaning of “mitigation” versus “adaptation,” the scope of shoreline hardening, and whether the bill would help the legislature take a broader, more holistic view of shoreline decisions. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so the penalty part of this is a real serious deterrent from not doing what the contract said.
• ><01:01:42.720> a<01:01:43.040> real<01:01:43.440> serious<01:01:43.839> deterrent
• <01:01:44.559> from this is a real serious deterrent from this is a real serious deterrent

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The meeting was called to order, the Pledge of Allegiance was led, and the clerk called the roll, establishing a quorum. The committee approved the prior minutes after correcting the date and changing a reference so that a draft-legislation note attributed to Representative Wlette was corrected. After that, the chair introduced a carbon presentation by Mr. Charlie Lebec and invited members and guests to move closer to view the slides. Mr. Lebec’s presentation focused on forest carbon science and forest carbon offset markets, with emphasis on how forests store, sequester, and emit carbon. He explained greenhouse gases and the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature, then defined key terms such as carbon storage, sequestration, flux, sinks, and sources. He also described forest carbon pools, noting that soils contain a large share of forest carbon, and discussed how forest age affects storage and sequestration, arguing that younger forests often sequester carbon faster while older forests store more carbon overall. He also addressed how harvested wood products can continue to store carbon, responding to a question from a member about mass timber and carbon sinks. The presentation included regional comparisons showing New Hampshire’s forest density, carbon storage, and sequestration relative to other New England states, and noted that New Hampshire forests offset more than 30% of the state’s annual greenhouse gas emissions from nonforest sources, while Maine and Vermont offset even larger shares. Mr. Lebec said eastern forests are generally carbon sinks, unlike some western forests affected by wildfire, and stressed that forest management, soil protection, and forest age all influence carbon outcomes. No votes or substantive policy actions were taken beyond approving the minutes; the meeting was primarily informational.

Transcript Highlights:

• You might be told that the fee program in some cities acts as a deterrent and should be protected.
• cities acts that the fee program in some cities acts as<01:44:31.119> a<01:44:31.280> deterrent
• as a deterrent and should be protected. as a deterrent and should be protected.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• . $15 is, in my opinion, not enough to be a deterrent.
• > to<00:59:28.160> to<00:59:28.280> be<00:59:28.440> a<00:59:28.760> deterrent
• c><00:59:29.839> um<00:59:30.839> and<00:59:31.799> I not enough to to be a deterrent
• um and I not enough to to be a deterrent um and I can<00:59:32.039> say<00:59:32.280> 20

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• He said they do feel that adding some additional deterrence may improve efficiency, and if it turns out
• do feel that adding<00:29:15.519> some<00:29:15.799> additional<00:29:16.640> deterrence
• <00:29:17.640> uh<00:29:17.880> May adding some additional deterrence uh May adding
• some additional deterrence uh May improve<00:29:19.080> efficiency<00:29:19.760> and<00

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• we're talking about damage prevention, ma'am, you mentioned that there needs to be a a feasible deterrent
• , like a deterrent that's going to keep bad behavior from happening. your professional opinion and what

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And for some programs, that was also a deterrent for partnering in the program.
• And for some programs, that was also a deterrent for partnering in the program.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held an informational hearing on the Governor’s May Revision, focusing first on the Commission on Behavioral Health, then EMSA, and then the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). The Department of Finance said the state faces a third consecutive deficit and that the May Revision includes difficult trade-offs, including proposed eliminations or reversions of some behavioral health and public health funds. The LAO echoed concern about the structural deficit and said it was still awaiting some budget details before offering a full analysis. For the Commission on Behavioral Health, Finance proposed eliminating $20 million in Mental Health Wellness Act funds, arguing the money would help offset General Fund costs and noting future Proposition 1 innovation funding. The commission strongly opposed the cut, saying it would eliminate or delay launch-ready grants for early childhood supports, full-service partnerships, and peer respite, and would eventually end ongoing grant programming. Several advocates and commissioners testified that the funds support underserved communities and that Proposition 1 is not a substitute for the existing programs. The chair asked Finance to look for alternatives, but no vote was taken. EMSA presented mostly technical budget adjustments: increased authority for the California Poison Control System, a correction to EMSIS funding, and a reappropriation for enterprise services and data management. CDPH then reviewed a broader set of May Revision proposals, including reversions from the California Reducing Disparities Project, workforce development, STD prevention, hepatitis C prevention, hospice, and extreme heat funding, as well as a new generative AI pilot for health facility survey reporting. Members raised concerns about cuts to CRDP and gender health equity programs, especially because many grants are mid-contract and serve underserved communities; CDPH said the reversions were part of solving the deficit and that CRDP had been successful, while also clarifying that abortion.ca.gov would not be eliminated. Public comment was overwhelmingly opposed to the CRDP and related cuts, with many speakers describing the programs as life-saving and cost-effective. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• The deterrent effect of litigation is something we always talk about.
• to relate where those caps are, or limited waivers, to how those actually relate to behavior and deterrence
• first one I have: you mentioned the not cap, the limited waiver of $250,000...” to behavior and deterrence

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The submission of certified payroll records is both how these laws are enforced and a significant deterrent
• 00:16:24.320> and<00:16:24.440> a<00:16:24.480> significant<00:16:25.240> deterrent
• The submission of certified payroll records is both how these laws are enforced and a significant deterrent

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Legislation that further restricts underwriting decisions becomes a serious deterrent.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Insurance met as a subcommittee due to a lack of quorum, and first heard AB 1559 by Assembly Member Calderon. The bill would add consumer protections when insurers use aerial imagery for underwriting or coverage decisions by requiring notice before collecting images, giving policyholders access to images used, and allowing an in-person inspection if an image is used to non-renew, cancel, or reduce coverage. The Department of Insurance and United Policyholders supported the measure, citing complaints about outdated or inaccurate drone, satellite, and aircraft images; local governments, AARP, and Realtors also supported it, and there was no opposition. The committee later voted 6-0 to pass AB 1559 to the Privacy Committee. The committee also heard AB 2038 by Assembly Member Harabedian, which would extend wildfire-related non-renewal moratoriums for homeowners, including extending protections for total-loss properties and homes within or near a fire perimeter. Supporters, including the Consumer Federation of California, United Policyholders, and the League of California Cities, argued that rebuilding after major fires is taking much longer than expected and that homeowners need more time and stability. Opponents from the insurance industry warned that extending moratoriums, especially to adjacent zip codes, could further constrain insurers, worsen availability and affordability, and push more business to the FAIR Plan. Senators raised concerns about the zip-code-based perimeter and whether the bill should be tied to home-hardening standards, but the author said the bill simply extends existing timelines and would continue negotiations on amendments. The committee voted 4-0 to send AB 2038 to Appropriations. File items 1 and 3 were taken up as consent items and approved 6-0. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• costs, although DOJ already provides guidance to county registrars, and the goal of the bill is deterrence

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on May 13, 2026, and began by taking up a large consent calendar, moving a first group of bills to the floor consent calendar and a second group by due pass. The committee then heard and advanced a series of measures covering housing, public safety, health care, education, and local government issues. Among the bills discussed were AB 2641 on a sales tax exemption for pawnbroker redemptions, AB 2525 on a narrow Surplus Lands Act exemption for Mission Bay Park, AB 1732 and AB 2433 on student housing and the Affordable Homes Bonus Law, AB 2055 on boating safety and enforcement, AB 1579 on children’s crisis residential services, AB 2139 on a Surplus Lands Act amendment for an Inland Empire soccer project, AB 2041 on EMS reporting, AB 1973 on reproductive health scope for advanced practice clinicians, AB 1929 on health plan investment disclosures, AB 2700 on utility rates and wildfire victim compensation, AB 1809 on school job order contracting, SB 73 on election security, AB 2418 on commercial building permit timelines, AB 1970 on step therapy limits for serious mental illness and substance use treatment, AB 2361 on peer-to-peer vehicle-sharing liability, AB 1976 on bike and pedestrian project approvals, AB 2110 on tax increment financing for workforce housing, and AB 2146 on supportive housing documentation and vacancy rules. Testimony was generally supportive for the measures heard. Authors and sponsors emphasized consumer fairness, housing production, public safety, access to care, and administrative streamlining. Supporters included local governments, housing advocates, school districts, law enforcement groups, health care organizations, and affected individuals. AB 2700 drew especially extensive public testimony from wildfire survivors and local officials who urged stronger compensation for victims of PG&E-caused fires and relief from high utility costs. AB 2034 and AB 1790 were raised during public comment on bills not heard in committee, with several industry groups opposing AB 2034 and both supporters and opponents speaking on AB 1790’s Waters Edge issue. Most bills were reported out of committee on due pass motions, with several noted as amended or with members not voting on particular roll calls. The committee also read and approved a lengthy suspense calendar, then opened public comment on bills not presented that day before adjourning.