Transcript Highlights:

• After extensive hearings with stakeholders, input, committee
• It wouldn't create a process for experts, educators, parents, and stakeholders to develop age-appropriate
• To the educators, advocates, and stakeholders who have worked toward this curriculum for years, I am
• with the Board of Pharmacy, with the Alaska Pharmacy Association, with many different health care stakeholders

Keywords: 905, all

Summary: The Alaska Legislature met in joint session to consider gubernatorial vetoes of five bills. Members first took up House Bill 52 on minors and psychiatric hospitals, with supporters arguing it would improve transparency, family communication, oversight, and reporting around seclusion and restraint in psychiatric facilities. Opponents of the veto cited DOJ findings and media reports about abuses at a North Star facility. The override failed, 36-24, falling short of the 40 votes needed. The joint session then considered Senate Bill 41 on mental health education. Supporters said it would help develop age-appropriate mental health curriculum and could aid suicide prevention, while critics argued it was mischaracterized and did not impose a state takeover of local schools. The veto override failed, 38-22. Members next considered House Bill 314 on architects, engineers, surveyors, and interior designers, focusing on the AELS Board’s continuation and the need for professional oversight during major infrastructure work. That override passed, 45-15. The legislature then voted on Senate Bill 21, the Alaska Work and Save Program, which supporters said would expand retirement savings access for workers and small businesses, including an option to direct PFD funds into retirement accounts. The override failed, 39-21. Finally, House Bill 195 on pharmacists and physician assistants was debated as a health care access measure that would let pharmacists provide more services under a standard-of-care model; supporters said it would reduce costs and improve access, while some members raised concerns about scope and abortion-related issues. The veto override passed, 43-17. The joint session then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• I just would like to acknowledge that my office has been in contact with various stakeholders and we've
• What I would add is that DTSC held a public workshop two months ago to seek input from stakeholders and
• I hope you're working with the stakeholders and you continue to work with them.
• going to give you my vote today, but I want to see that you guys are continuing to work with the stakeholders

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I HEARD YOU SAY SENATOR YOU GOT INTO A GOOD SPOT AND THESE ARE ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS THAT HAVE LANDED
• IN YOUR CONSULTATION AND DISCUSSIONS WERE THE STAKEHOLDERS INCLUDED IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS? >> Sen.
• Rouson: I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON STAKEHOLDERS BUT I WANT TO BE SPECIFIC.
• WE'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS AND ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES TO STREAMLINE THIS PROCESS
• EDUCATORS IN THE WORKPLACES, EXCLUDING THE INPUT OF DEDICATED EDUCATORS AS THEY WORK DAY IN AND DAY

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Businesses can have exemptions for certain capital equipment, farm machinery, and certain inputs.
• input on maybe how they can handle that within the Tax Committee.
• input on maybe how they can handle that within the Tax Committee.
• input on maybe how they can handle that within the Tax Committee.
• There may be other stakeholders that will flag these issues as well.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House Tax Committee met for an organizational and orientation session. Members and staff introduced themselves, with several lawmakers noting their districts, business backgrounds, and interest in tax policy. Chair Greg Davids then opened the committee’s first substantive item: a presentation from House Research and House Fiscal staff on how the committee works and on basic tax concepts. House Research staff Sean Williams and Chris Clayman explained their roles in drafting bills and amendments, writing bill summaries, answering legal and policy questions, and modeling tax proposals. They also described the committee’s key documents, including partisan and nonpartisan bill summaries, revenue estimates, fiscal notes, and supporting materials. Their presentation covered core tax concepts such as tax bases, rates, deductions, exemptions, credits, tax revenues, and tax expenditures, emphasizing that tax expenditures function like spending through the tax code and are reviewed by a legislative commission. The staff then reviewed Minnesota’s major taxes, focusing on the individual income tax and business taxation. They explained that Minnesota’s individual income tax starts with federal adjusted gross income, then applies state additions, deductions, subtractions, and credits, and that the state’s income tax brackets and rates are set separately from federal law. They also outlined the difference between corporate franchise taxes for C corporations and individual income tax treatment for pass-through entities, and discussed how the federal SALT cap led Minnesota and other states to adopt pass-through entity taxes so businesses could preserve federal deductibility of state taxes. Members asked questions about a duplicate “marriage penalty” entry on a slide, the purpose of Minnesota’s marriage penalty credit, comparisons with other states, and the timing and effect of the pass-through entity tax; staff answered that the duplicate was a mistake, the credit offsets bracket-related marriage penalties, and the pass-through entity tax was adopted in response to the federal SALT cap.

Transcript Highlights:

• position recommended from the chair, but after the amendments that you've made and working with the stakeholders
• position recommended from the chair, but after the amendments that you've made and working with the stakeholders
• Thank you, Assembly Member, for your input. I want to appreciate... I want to thank the author.
• Thank you, Assembly Member, for your input.
• I want to appreciate the author for his willingness to continue to work with the stakeholders and with

Summary: The committee heard several bills related to public safety, emergency response, wildfire prevention, and environmental protection. AB 2152 by Assembly Member Mark Gonzalez would streamline CEQA litigation for new fire station projects and add best-practice requirements; supporters, including firefighters, said it would help communities and firefighter safety, while opponents argued the project labor agreement requirements would raise costs and limit participation for small and nonunion contractors. The bill passed to Appropriations. AB 2041 by Assembly Member Carrillo would expand reporting related to 911 dispatcher pre-arrival medical instructions; after amendments and stakeholder agreement, opposition groups said they would remove their opposition, and the bill passed to Appropriations. AB 2101 by Assembly Member Gipson would require human trafficking notices and training at disaster sites and for disaster response workers; supporters said it would protect vulnerable workers, while broadband, city, and county representatives raised implementation concerns, especially in rural disaster areas. It passed to Appropriations despite a no vote from Vice Chair Hadwick. The committee also considered AB 1805, which would require an audit and stronger oversight of the state’s Next Generation 911 project after concerns about major spending and delays. CalNENA supported the bill’s transparency and accountability provisions, and the measure passed to Appropriations. AB 1536 by Assembly Member Addis would tighten safety and public review requirements for offshore oil pipeline restarts and require decommissioning of certain spill-prone pipelines; environmental and coastal government groups supported it, while the Western States Petroleum Association warned it would threaten fuel supply and pipeline operations. The bill passed to Appropriations on a divided vote. AB 1964 would direct the State Fire Marshal to survey home hardening in fire-prone areas and estimate costs; it passed to Appropriations with broad support. AB 1960, also by Assembly Member Bennett, would use a portion of wildfire prevention grants to encourage community-level home hardening certification. The author said the bill would create incentives and broader public awareness, while the vice chair argued it would favor communities that can already afford hardening and divert resources from higher-need areas; the bill still passed to Appropriations. AB 1863 by Assembly Member DeMaio would clarify that people cannot be charged simply for calling 911 or when no services are rendered, while preserving fees for actual services and allowing billing for legitimate emergency response costs; it passed to the Assembly floor. The committee also took up consent item AB 2517, which passed to Appropriations. After add-on votes for absent members, the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• And therefore, reducing stakeholder input and transparency. I respectfully ask for a no vote.
• institutions to use a single sales factor apportionment formula for purposes of apportioning multi-stakeholder
• bond program so that high-speed rail will continue on. to the future without any sort of oversight or input
• I would like to thank her for her working to address all of the issues from stakeholders.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative De Ayala for visiting with us about the concerns and encouraging us to visit with stakeholders
• So, In the end, I want to say that I look very much forward to TTLA working with the stakeholders and
• because we have an outcome that we'd like to see because of this, and the question is whether or not the input
• Um, Within a certain playing field, we ought to make sure that Um, We have the input that we need.
• We can work very closely with the stakeholders in that case.

Transcript Highlights:

• you can't speak for an organization that I discovered in reading through the bill and talking to stakeholders
• Have you had conversations with the stakeholders and >> what what?
• And and as long as I've been a member of the state legislature, when I run a bill, I want all stakeholders
• We're we're is input as to the you know, having this garden leave agreement, tightened up or strengthen
• would be considered to be an egregious act versus one that would be repairable by just notifying your input

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• As we move forward, I'm committed to working with committee. members, our constituents, stakeholders,
• I recommended was bumping it up to a felony, because in my experience with clients . . . with a stakeholder
• The committee substitute working with stakeholders and hopefully get something on the House floor.
• I believe I have. of input into the entire state of Texas. Yes, sir.
• I may be missing a part of what was said but whatever. the city to get any input from you guys.

Bills: HB 13, HB143, HB144, HB145, HB366, HB470, HB805, HB912, HB13, HB143, HB144, HB145

Keywords: emergency communication, infrastructure, first responders, grant program, interoperability, Texas Interoperability Council, local governments, HB 143, Texas Railroad Commission, Public Utility Commission of Texas, Natural Resources Code, oil and gas, well site, surface facility, electrical power line, National Electrical Code, NEC, electrical safety, utility disconnect, service disconnection

Transcript Highlights:

• There's still abundant local government input on all of this.
• There's a ton of local input on that. All right. Nothing further. OK, thank you.
• I appreciate the input. Thank you. Other questions? Not seeing any.
• First of all, I want to say thank you for the input.
• This is something that I've had some very good Input from the DNR.

Transcript Highlights:

• my understanding of it is now, if a person is given a ticket and they go to court and say, 'I was inputting
• you said, you basically just said that somebody can now, under this proposed law, hold their phone inputting
• The input of GPS is allowed under law, right? And you can do that.
• was a reason why a judge would say that, or you couldn't, they wouldn't, they would say that not inputting
• Over the past couple of years, some of the stakeholders, I know a couple that have spoken today, asked

Summary: The committee first reviewed the fiscal year 2025-2026 budget proposal for transportation, tourism, and economic development, which totals about $18 billion and includes major funding for the Department of Transportation work program, Visit Florida, affordable housing, library/cultural/historical initiatives, National Guard tuition assistance, and Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles needs. Members approved staff technical adjustments and then adopted the budget proposal as a recommendation to the full Senate Appropriations Committee. The committee then heard and approved CS/SB 666, which creates a specialty license plate for the Miami Northwestern Alumni Association, with proceeds supporting scholarships and school academic, athletic, and arts programs. CS/SB 1318, the hands-free driving bill, drew extensive testimony from the sponsor, law enforcement, advocates, and victims’ families. Supporters argued it would create a clearer, easier-to-enforce prohibition on holding a wireless device while driving and help reduce crashes and deaths; some senators raised concerns about enforcement, privacy, and impacts on drivers with older vehicles, but the bill was reported favorably. The committee also approved SB 1408, designating memorial highways for Tampa Police Officer Jesse Madsen and Charlotte County Sergeant Elio Diaz, and SB 1516, which would create the International Aerospace Innovation Fund administered by Space Florida to support partnerships between Florida and international aerospace companies. Both bills had supportive testimony and no opposition noted. The meeting ended with adjournment after the final votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Who are the stakeholders that we need to engage as we're thinking through policy?
• Who are the stakeholders<00:34:12.800> that<00:34:13.040> we<00:34:13.200> need<
• I had shared previously at the MOAB that we had already solicited input from stakeholders in Kentucky
• So what we're doing is we've cataloged all that input we've gotten.
• cataloged all that input we've gotten. cataloged all that input we've gotten.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee met and approved the minutes from its August 27 meeting. It then received a presentation from Katherine Castanza of the National Conference of State Legislators on the Medicaid provisions in the 2025 budget reconciliation bill, referred to as HR1. She explained that the bill is estimated by CBO to save the federal government $911 billion over 10 years, with more than 20 Medicaid-specific provisions, most of the savings concentrated in five policies and largely backloaded into 2030-2034. She emphasized that the bill’s effects will vary by state, but that expansion states and hospitals are expected to be most affected, in part because of changes to eligibility, provider taxes, and state-directed payments. Castanza highlighted several new funding and flexibility provisions, including a $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Fund for 2026-2030 and a new home- and community-based services waiver option effective July 1, 2028, with $100 million in grants in fiscal year 2027. She also outlined major eligibility changes for Medicaid expansion adults: work or community engagement requirements effective January 1, 2027; twice-yearly redeterminations for the expansion population effective the same date; and new cost sharing for certain expansion adults effective October 1, 2028. She noted that Kentucky, as an expansion state, would be subject to these changes and that state agencies would face significant implementation demands, especially because federal guidance and timelines are tight. A substantial portion of the presentation focused on financing changes. Castanza described new limits on provider taxes, including a 0% safe harbor for new taxes and a phased reduction for existing taxes in expansion states beginning in 2028, while nursing facilities and intermediate care facilities are exempt from the reduction if already taxed. She also explained that state-directed payments will be capped and phased down over time, with existing arrangements grandfathered only briefly; she said Kentucky has 11 approved state-directed payments and could see significant fiscal effects. She added that the bill also bars Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood or similarly situated providers for one year, changes immigrant eligibility rules effective October 1, 2026, lowers the federal match for certain emergency services, and expands the scope of the federal erroneous payment recoupment provision effective October 1, 2029. Throughout, she stressed that federal savings may translate into state cost shifts and that implementation timing will be critical.

Transcript Highlights:

• ORIGINATED IN OUR SILO, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A CONTENTIOUS ONE WHERE YOU ARE BALANCING ALL THESE DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS
• , STAKEHOLDER GROUPS.
• IN PREVIOUS SESSIONS THE ROOM HAS BEEN FULL AND WE'VE HAD SO MUCH CONSTITUENT INPUT BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER

Transcript Highlights:

• And just, I was a part of that stakeholder group, and we brought up the really the need for providers
• And just, I was a part of that stakeholder group, and we brought up the really the need for providers
• We were able to get approved wanted to offer input for um we offered wanted to offer input for um we
• > our children or I'm sorry input from our children or I'm sorry input from our families<00:53
• as far as with most of our stakeholders as far as the<01:36:03.679> childcare<01:36:04.159>

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and first heard brief presentations on Kentucky’s 2025 Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant and Title V Maternal and Child Health Block Grant. Department for Public Health staff explained that the preventive health block grant provides about $2.3 million annually and supports programs such as accreditation and performance improvement, local health department grants, community health workers, prescription assistance, asthma and COPD programs, workforce development, and a sexual assault programs set-aside. They said the Title V block grant provides about $11.7 million, with 35% directed to children and youth with special health care needs and 65% to maternal and child health populations, largely through local health departments and a five-year needs assessment process. After no questions, a motion was made and seconded to approve both block grants. The roll call vote passed 19-0, and the two block grants were approved. The committee then approved the minutes from the prior meeting. The next item was a discussion of the child waiver created in House Bill 6. Committee members raised concerns that the proposed 1915(c) waiver did not match the legislature’s intent, which they said was to move children from the Michelle P. waiver to free slots for adults. Cabinet officials from DCBS, behavioral health, and Medicaid described the proposed “Community Health for Improved Lives and Development” waiver as a targeted home- and community-based program for children under 21 with severe behavioral health or developmental needs, including those stepping down from inpatient or residential care or at risk of out-of-home placement. They said the waiver is designed for about 100 slots, uses a standardized needs-based assessment, and includes case management, community living supports, home modifications, respite, supervised residential care, and clinical therapeutic services. Officials said the public comment period ended July 15, responses are being compiled for August submission to CMS, and the waiver is part of the broader Families First initiative.

Transcript Highlights:

• The commission will be required to take public testimony and receive input from special education stakeholders
• The commission will be required to take public testimony and receive input from special education stakeholders
• The commission will be required to take public testimony and receive input from special education stakeholders
• The commission will be required to take public testimony and receive input from special education stakeholders
• The commission will be required to take public testimony and receive input from special education stakeholders

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We are continuing to have many conversations with stakeholders and cities and many folks, and we want
• So certainly continuing to have those conversations and take input and feedback and incorporate this.
• have those conversations and take input have those conversations and take input and<00:03:20.120
• this bill stands on the stakeholders this bill stands on the shoulders<00:04:56.199> of<00:04
• We have made a genuine effort to incorporate that input, and will continue to do that.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• upgrade<00:11:18.240> our To engage students in how to upgrade our facilities with their input
• collaboratively with the executive officer in this case, the president of the university, for her input
• as well and and then uh go forward input as well and and then uh go forward with<00:20:36.400> that
• into the decisions that the their input into the decisions that the regions<00:30:16.240> need
• legislature and other stakeholders. legislature and other stakeholders.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Meaningful engagement and their input truly being taken into account is what we look for.
• The change was a challenge for many of our stakeholders, and unfortunately, this was shortly followed
• If you can please provide a status on the turnaround plans and any updates on stakeholder engagement
• If you can please provide a status on the turnaround plans and any updates on stakeholder engagement
• I'm glad you highlighted that, but to make sure that all stakeholder groups, including represented groups

Summary: The joint Assembly Higher Education and Budget Subcommittee hearing focused on the future of the California State University system, with opening remarks emphasizing CSU’s major role in California’s economy, workforce, and degree production. Chairs and members said the hearing was intended to inform 2026 budget decisions and to examine three main issues: declining enrollment at some campuses, cost controls and possible consolidation, and oversight of recent state investments at campuses such as Humboldt and Sonoma. The meeting was briefly delayed by microphone and sound problems before reconvening. The first panel featured CSU Academic Senate Chair Dr. Elizabeth Boyd and Cal State Student Association Vice President Katie Karam. Boyd urged the Legislature to protect academic freedom, strengthen faculty governance, provide stable ongoing funding, end unfunded mandates, support student food and housing security, fund flexible course schedules, improve transfer systems such as ASSIST, avoid over-centralizing academic programs, protect immigrant students, and expand intersegmental collaboration. Karam said students are feeling the effects of budget shortfalls through fewer course sections, reduced advising and services, longer time to degree, and tuition pressure, and she called for transparency, meaningful student involvement in budget decisions, and sustained state investment rather than cuts that harm the student experience. The second panel covered enrollment management and included CSU Chancellor’s Office and campus administrators from Chico State, Cal State L.A., and San Diego State. Dr. Delcy Perez said CSU Forward and the new systemwide enrollment plan are aimed at expanding access, aligning programs with workforce needs, and increasing resident enrollment; she reported systemwide enrollment gains and strong application numbers, including a direct-admissions pilot that expanded from Riverside to more campuses. Campus representatives described local recruitment and retention strategies, including early outreach to high school students, community college partnerships, guaranteed admission programs, and expanded advising and student support. San Diego State highlighted record enrollment and high demand, while Cal State L.A. described efforts to recover from impaction and rebuild enrollment. Members pressed CSU officials on the accuracy of enrollment data, the gap between funded targets and actual enrollment, and the system’s reallocation formula. CSU staff explained that campuses below target will see a 5% ongoing reallocation beginning in 2026-27, with one-time reserve funding also being directed to campuses that can grow, and that fiscal health reviews have been completed for 21 of 22 campuses. Legislators also asked about turnaround plans required by the budget act; CSU said those plans are being developed and will be shared in the spring after campus consultation. No formal votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• >> That's a really good point, and these are good points and input.
• <00:41:49.599> We these are good points and input. We these are good points and input.
• Appreciate the input. I would say Senator Rawlings got some work to do.
• Appreciate the input. I would say Senator Rawlings got some work to do.
• Appreciate the input. I would say Senator Rawlings got some work to do.

Keywords: Discussion of BR 25 (2026 RS) 04:15 Presentation on voting systems by ES&S 48:14 Presentation on voting systems by Hart InterCivic and Harp Enterprises 01:13:07, 958, all

Summary: The committee met, approved the October 21 minutes, and then took up BR 25 for the 2026 regular session, a proposal to prohibit the use of tax dollars and public resources to advocate for or against ballot questions, including constitutional amendments. Senator Rawlings and the other presenters argued the current law already bars such advocacy but lacks meaningful enforcement, citing the 2024 school choice amendment campaign and other examples where public officials and school systems allegedly used taxpayer-funded resources to influence voters. They said the bill would add civil and criminal penalties, while preserving First Amendment rights for public employees acting in their personal capacities. Much of the discussion focused on whether the bill should be limited to school districts or broadened to cover other public entities, and on how to define terms such as “advocating in impartial terms.” Members raised concerns about possible effects on county and city lobbying through groups like KLC and KCO, on legitimate factual explanations by public officials, and on whether the bill could unintentionally restrict needed representation for local governments. The sponsors said the measure was intended to be narrow, would be vetted further, and would not bar individuals from speaking on their own behalf. Several members suggested revisions. Representative Lockett asked that schools and school employees be specifically named, and suggested separating the lobbying restrictions from the ballot-measure provisions into different bills. Representative Layman questioned the meaning of the bill’s language and whether it would cover factual testimony by officials. Representative Heen asked about a Jefferson County example involving legal fees used to challenge petition signatures; counsel said that situation would likely be allowable under the bill as drafted, though some members thought it should be covered. No final vote was taken on BR 25 during this discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is what the filing is. stakeholders. We're really pleased with stakeholders.
• It's an amendment that arose after consultation with stakeholders.
• It identifies their responsibilities, including data to collect, input to receive, and to analyze in
• And then also adds to the criteria from whom input should be received.
• as we uh move forward with stakeholders as we uh move forward with this.<02:32:24.960> Uh<02:

Keywords: 1187, senate, all