Transcript Highlights:

• Any further discussion? Seeing vote. Any further discussion?
• . legislation. legislation.
• . legislation. legislation.
• Based on discussions with the Office of Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Council staff, and the
• Is there further<05:28:00.800> discussion? further discussion? further discussion?

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any further discussion?
• Any further discussion?
• Any further discussion? No, sir. Okay. Any further discussion from anyone?
• Any discussion? Mr.
• Any final discussion?

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, like in those discussions, not necessarily the amendment—was there discussion in Health on that
• We were asked to help, but we did not draft the legislation or bring the legislation to him. Okay.
• We were a co-sponsor of legislation in California, which allows organizations to co-sponsor legislation
• Is there discussion on the bill?
• And again, part of that discussion was— We did have discussions about that.

Keywords: 994, senate, all

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes and then took up House Bill 4852, a strike-and-insert bill revising West Virginia’s food additive restrictions. Counsel explained that it moved the existing additive list into a new code section, kept the 2028 effective date, added exceptions for dietary supplements, alcoholic liquor, non-intoxicating beer, and small sellers under $5,000 per month, and created civil penalties for knowing violations. Testimony split between industry witnesses, who argued the bill and last year’s law would raise costs, burden interstate commerce, and conflict with federal regulation, and advocates who said the law is already prompting companies to reformulate and that the bill clarifies vague language tied to a federal injunction. Several amendments were offered to tie the law to FDA action or exempt soda, pepperoni rolls, frozen confections, and snack foods; some were adopted and others failed. The committee then adopted the strike-and-insert amendment as amended and reported HB 4852 to the full Senate with a do-pass recommendation. The committee next considered House Bill 5484, which creates felony offenses for interfering with a victim’s access to medical treatment or forensic care related to a sexual offense, or for forcing a victim of a sexual offense who becomes pregnant to have an illegal abortion, along with a conspiracy offense. Counsel said the strike-and-insert added clarifying language and definitions. Members raised concerns that the conspiracy language could be read to include the victim herself, and the bill sponsor said the intent was to target traffickers and abusers who keep victims from medical care and force abortions outside medical facilities. An amendment was adopted clarifying that nothing in the subsection imposes criminal liability on the victim of the sexual offense. The committee then adopted the strike-and-insert amendment, reported HB 5484 to the full Senate with a do-pass recommendation, and adopted a title amendment. The final bill discussed in the excerpt was House Bill 4468, which narrows confidentiality protections for victims in criminal complaints by limiting redaction to names and addresses, while still allowing disclosure to other governmental entities and permitting victims to request redaction of addresses from appellate decisions after July 1, 2026. Counsel said the bill would replace broader existing confidentiality language and remove provisions allowing disclosure upon a showing of justice or by subpoena. Members questioned whether the change would weaken victim privacy protections, noting that identifying information can include much more than names and addresses. The committee then began hearing testimony from a county prosecutor on the bill, but the excerpt ends before any vote or final action on HB 4468.

Transcript Highlights:

• Further discussion, Senator support. Further discussion, Senator Kirkmeier.
• legislative department. legislative department.
• Any discussion on the bill?
• Any discussion?
• Any discussion? discussion? discussion?

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So it would move it up to the 27th legislative day, making it seven legislative days sooner.
• a legislative code of ethics.
• Do we have any discussion on any of the rules? Any discussion? Any of the rules? Any discussion?
• Discussion regarding arrangements for the special session of the Legislative Assembly, which will be
• Obviously, the legislative session in 2027 can look at progress, have discussions with DHS on all the

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: Legislative Management met with a quorum, approved the July 11, 2025 minutes, and then considered recommendations from the Legislative Procedures and Arrangements Committee. Beth Dittes explained proposed special session rule changes, which largely mirror prior special session rules and are intended to speed floor action. The changes would allow faster second readings and transmission between chambers, replace regular standing committees with two joint committees for the special session—Joint Appropriations and Joint Policy—and limit bill introduction methods. The package also included delayed-effective-date changes for the next regular session, such as moving the agency and Supreme Court prefile deadline earlier and advancing several resolution deadlines. Liz Fordall then reviewed revisions to the legislative workplace harassment policy, including clarified definitions, longer intake and review deadlines, an option for informal resolution before a review panel, and clearer disclosure rules. The committee adopted the report and forwarded the rules and policy changes. The committee also approved tentative first-day special session agendas for both chambers, with a Speaker-requested revision to allow time to swear in new House members. Megan Gordon outlined the schedule: early Rules Committee meetings, morning floor sessions, a joint session for the governor’s State of the State, then meetings of the joint appropriations and policy committees, with optional later floor and committee time. Members discussed how the joint committees would handle bills and confirmed the process would mirror the prior special session. The agendas were adopted. Chairman Bekkedahl then reported for the Rural Health Transformation Committee, which had completed its work and recommended five bill drafts for the special session: a Presidential Physical Fitness Test requirement for schools, a nutrition component for physician continuing education, joining a physician assistant licensure compact, expanding pharmacist scope for lab testing and prescribing, and a two-year appropriations bill to cover the program through the next regular session. He explained the federal rural health transformation grant, the state’s application, funding restrictions, and the need to keep the bills aligned with CMS requirements to avoid funding reductions or clawbacks. DHS officials said the department would measure outcomes through required metrics, use templates for awards, and set up an Office of Health Transformation to track long-term impacts. The committee adopted the rural health report and forwarded the bills. Finally, members discussed special-session logistics. Legislative staff said employment committees would approve a limited number of staff, Legislative Management would serve as the delayed-bills committee, and a letter would be sent to legislators explaining the process and a suggested Friday noon drafting deadline for bills to be considered at the January 20 meeting. The committee also discussed how many bills might be introduced and how to assign the rural health bills to the House or Senate for origin. No formal vote was taken on those logistics, and the meeting adjourned with plans to reconvene on January 20.

Transcript Highlights:

• Further discussion?
• Discussion?
• Further discussion?
• Further discussion?
• Further discussion?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion?
• Further discussion? Further discussion?
• Further discussion on the amendment? Further discussion on the amendment?
• It was drafted for a particular legislator over in the Senate and was discussed publicly, but it hasn't
• I'm sure you've had discussions. Yeah, there are discussions.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee met to consider four policy bills and discussed a possible later return to handle DOCR amendments and budget work. They first took up HB 1327, funding for the Agricultural Diversification and Development Fund, and adopted an amendment striking language that would have capped up to $10 million for agricultural infrastructure grants to political subdivisions. The bill was then passed as amended on a 22-0 vote, with Rep. Belts assigned as carrier. Next, the committee considered SB 2256, the Research Technology Park grant. Rep. Stemen offered an amendment reducing the appropriation amounts from the original figures to $10 million and $5 million levels, citing available funding; the amendment passed 19-3. The bill then passed as amended 22-0, and Rep. Stemen agreed to carry it. The committee then debated SB 2093, which combined a retired peace officers/surviving spouses benefit with an added income tax reduction. Rep. Munson moved to remove the income tax portion, and the committee agreed 17-4. The remaining peace officer benefit portion was then passed as amended 21-0, with Rep. Kempenich carrying it. Finally, the committee considered HB 2160, changing the state health plan from grandfathered to non-grandfathered status. Members discussed cost shifting, employee retention, out-of-pocket exposure, and the updated fiscal note; the committee adopted an amendment updating the appropriation figures to match the current PERS/Deloitte analysis, then passed the bill as amended 15-7-1, with Rep. Worry originally the carrier.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've discussed it.
• Further discussion.
• Discussion, Lady from Boone. Discussion, lady from Boone. Thank you, Mr.
• Discussion on the title.
• Discussion on the title.

Summary: The House met with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and approval of the previous day’s journal by a 133-0 vote. Members then spent much of the morning introducing interns, special guests, pages, and a doctor of the day, along with a recognition of Teacher Appreciation Day and a brief announcement about a Missouri contestant on American Idol. The chamber then took up a long series of Senate bills and House amendments, largely on crime, public safety, corrections, and related issues. Measures discussed included drone enforcement authority for law enforcement, a Missouri Ranger/school safety proposal and school bus stop-arm penalties, automatic expungement for certain drug offenses, Alzheimer’s and dementia training for law enforcement and adult protective services, fire hydrant testing, pseudoephedrine access, prison cell phone contraband, hands-free cell phone law fixes, critical infrastructure/copper theft, a parent-accountability bill involving minors, fentanyl trafficking, Attorney General staff carrying firearms, and a domestic violence registry. Several members raised concerns about school safety, privacy, criminal justice policy, and whether some proposals were too broad or punitive, while others emphasized public safety, victim support, and administrative clarity. The most extended debate centered on a death-penalty post-conviction relief amendment, with supporters arguing it would align Missouri law with federal procedures and speed up lengthy appeals, and opponents warning it could reduce safeguards in capital cases. After a roll call vote, that amendment was adopted 75-68. Another notable debate involved a first-responder buffer zone amendment, where supporters said it would protect officers and others during tense encounters, while opponents argued it could chill public recording of police activity. The House also adopted amendments on domestic violence protections, child abuse interview recording and camp background checks, inmate reentry documents and job preparation, and several technical fixes to previously passed bills. A point of order was sustained on one untimely distributed amendment, but most other amendments were adopted by voice vote or roll call.

Transcript Highlights:

• Any discussion to that motion? Potentially the fee. Any discussion to that motion?
• I don't see any more discussion.
• I do have a discussion item.
• No discussion or questions. We'll move it to the public for public discussion.
• Any discussion to that motion? Okay, there's some... Any discussion to that motion?

Keywords: 985, all

Transcript Highlights:

• legislative approval? legislative approval?
• discussion? Representative Nat. discussion? Representative Nat.
• Any other discussion?
• legislation.
• . legislation. legislation.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee began with introductions and a description of the day’s process: a full committee work session on four bills, with no public testimony, followed by caucus and then executive action. The first bill discussed was HB 113, concerning OHRV operation on certain highways in Windsor. Representative Nab presented an amendment that would require a public hearing and Department of Transportation approval, modeled on procedures used in Coös and Grafton counties. Members discussed whether Windsor had already held a local vote or hearing, whether minutes from a town meeting existed, and whether the amendment truly preserved local control. A Windsor resident testified informally that the town had not taken a final vote and that the matter had been left to the state. Committee members also raised concerns about noise, dust, public safety, and the fact that the road in question would connect OHRVs on a state road rather than a trail system. The chair closed the work session on HB 113 and said the committee would return after caucus to vote on the bill and amendment. The committee then took up HB 595FN, relative to coastal resilience zones. Representative Nat said the bill addressed flooding concerns in both coastal and inland New Hampshire, but that the sponsor viewed it as too complex and had recommended breaking the issue into separate parts in future legislation. On that basis, Nat said it was appropriate to ITL the bill, and noted that the sponsor supported that course. No further discussion followed, and the work session was closed. Next was HB 629FN, funding the operation, maintenance, and repair of state dams. Representative Darby explained that the original bill had proposed both a waterfront frontage tax and a $5 charge tied to boat registration, but that the amendment would replace the bill by removing the frontage tax, moving the $5 dam-maintenance fee to the boat decal section of statute, and changing the effective date to January 1, 2027. Darby said the larger fee had raised concerns about impacts on current-use property and enforcement, while the revised $5 fee would raise roughly $500,000 to $600,000 annually. Representative Dunn thanked Darby and said the Marine Trades Association supported the revised approach. A question was raised about whether the original prime sponsors supported the amendment; the chair said they were on board, and Darby added that the proposal reflected recommendations from a prior study committee. The committee then closed HB 629FN and opened SB 27FN, relative to dwellings over water. On SB 27FN, Representative Derby said he opposed the bill because it would take away public access rights and amounted to a one-off legislative solution for a private concern. Representative Donnelly asked how many similar structures might be affected and whether the Department of Environmental Services knew of other cases; DES responded that there was one other related case under settlement compliance and no other active cases with the same issue. In follow-up discussion, DES clarified that the proposal was not a shoreland 50-foot setback issue, but rather involved structures extending over public water. The discussion remained focused on the scope of the bill and its potential precedent-setting effect, with no vote taken in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Many times we also discuss legislation we need to oppose, and usually the junior senator from the 8th
• It's your further discussion. Is there further discussion?
• And for that reason, I cannot support this current legislation. Thank you. Further discussion.
• And for that reason, I cannot support this current legislation. Thank you. Further discussion.
• I urge passage of the legislation. Further discussion. The Senator to close? Thank you.

Keywords: 994, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And then with the 1971 Legislative Assembly, they repealed 52-12.
• when we're actually discussing the bids themselves.
• Some of them were approved in this last legislative session.
• Any further discussion before... I do have one comment.
• And I think now Legislative Council, it comes out of the legislative budget. Is that correct?

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to approve prior minutes, hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave, and related policy issues, and then recess for lunch. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the long-standing state-paid family coverage, cost-control measures, wellness incentives, the current grandfathered PPO and high-deductible options, and the effects of recent benefit mandates such as insulin caps, prosthetic coverage, medication management, prescription copay changes, and ambulance balance-billing limits. Committee members questioned the fiscal impact of adding benefits and the possible cost of moving to a non-grandfathered plan, while PERS and HRMS emphasized that health insurance remains the top-ranked employee benefit and that any major plan changes should be considered carefully. HRMS also presented compensation comparisons showing state pay generally below private-market benchmarks, discussed targeted market equity adjustments, identified ongoing recruitment and retention concerns in fields like nursing, IT, engineering, and attorneys, and reviewed leave policies, tuition reimbursement, and family leave comparisons with neighboring states. Job Service provided labor market data showing low unemployment, high labor force participation, and wage growth that still trails some neighboring markets, and OMB explained that prevailing wage requirements apply to federally funded projects under Davis-Bacon, not to ordinary state contracts. After lunch, the committee took up the required process for health insurance mandate bills and adopted an amendment to Joint Rule 211. The amendment clarified that the deadline for submitting mandate measures is intended to allow time for all required reports, including both the cost-benefit analysis and any Employee Benefits Committee actuarial report, while leaving the existing deadline unchanged. The amendment was adopted on a roll call vote, with several members voting yes and a few no votes recorded. The committee then moved into its jurisdiction review of bill drafts, beginning with a bill that would automatically renew pre-tax dental and vision elections; members debated whether it had any actuarial or administrative impact on PERS or the state, and the chair explained that the committee’s role was only to decide whether further analysis was needed before later testimony and recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any discussion?
• I guess when I think about when we put into legislation reporting to the Legislative Assembly or to the
• I think we've discussed the bill enough. Is there any discussion? Representative M. Ruby.
• I think we've discussed the bill enough. Is there any discussion? Representative M. Ruby.
• Is there any discussion? Now, Senate Bill 2325 is before it... Is there any discussion?

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and a quorum present, then received a gubernatorial message listing numerous bills signed by the governor. The chamber also handled conference committee business, including appointing conferees for House Bills 1003 and 1169 after refusing to concur with Senate amendments, and adopting a conference committee report on House Bill 1053, which repealed a Century Code section related to the length of the state highway system. A major portion of the meeting focused on Senate Bill 2137, which would allow supplemental feed for hunting and include an expiration date. The House divided the proposed amendments into two parts. Division A, dealing with baiting limits and setbacks near livestock facilities, drew extensive debate over private property rights, enforceability, livestock protection, and hunting access, and failed 14-76. Division B, requiring chronic wasting disease surveillance and a report to Legislative Management, also drew debate over whether the reporting requirement was necessary or too late to be useful; it failed 44-46. With both divisions defeated, the House then passed the underlying bill 56-34. The House also laid over Senate Bills 2340, 2326, and 2289. Later, it defeated Senate Bill 2325, which would have created a process for non-federal easements on wetland areas, by a vote of 4-84. It passed Senate Bill 2210, directing a legislative management study on watershed-based water management, 85-3; Senate Bill 2387, establishing rights for sexual violence survivors, 89-0; and Senate Bill 269, allowing state agencies to satisfy legal notice requirements by posting on their websites if newspaper publication is missed, 72-17. The House then excused absent members and adjourned until Monday, April 14, 2025.

Transcript Highlights:

• In other business, Legislative Auditor Kevin White updated the committee regarding the Arkansas Legislative
• Any discussion on the motion? Discussion. Discussion. All right.
• I think the motion was to not have any discussion today, but to pass over discussion until August.
• So it's only discussed once.
• I'm sorry, we were discussing.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We wouldn't be good as legislators.
• And it's a fair discussion.
• And just, you know, we can have that discussion because that'll be part of the discussion of the other
• I'm looking for discussion.
• I'm looking for discussion.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion, all those in favor will vote aye.
• Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion, all those in favor will vote aye.
• Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion, all those in favor will vote aye.
• Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion, all those in favor will vote aye.
• Is there any discussion?

Keywords: 983, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And then with the 1971 Legislative Assembly, they repealed 52-12.
• when we're actually discussing the bids themselves.
• Some of them were approved in this last legislative session.
• Any further discussion before... I do have one comment.
• And I think now Legislative Council, it comes out of the legislative budget. Is that correct?

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave policies, labor market conditions, and prevailing wage issues, then later took up committee rules and bill-draft jurisdiction. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the state has paid the full family premium since 1979, described cost-control and benefit-enhancement changes over time, and explained current plan options, wellness incentives, employer wellness discounts, and the upcoming bid process for the 2027-29 contract. HRMS then presented compensation comparisons showing state classified pay generally trails private and regional markets, with larger gaps at higher-level jobs, and reviewed benefits and leave policies, including the new enhanced annual leave and new-hire leave, the state’s unpaid family leave structure, and varying tuition reimbursement practices. Job Service reported on labor force trends, low unemployment, high labor force participation, job openings, and wage growth, and OMB said there are no state prevailing-wage requirements beyond federal Davis-Bacon rules for federally funded projects. The committee then considered a proposed amendment to Joint Rule 211 to better align the health insurance mandate review process with recent statutory changes. Members discussed how the rule should reference both the committee’s required actuarial reports and the Legislative Council cost-benefit analysis, and the amendment was adopted on a roll call vote. The committee also discussed how its jurisdiction decisions affect whether a bill draft receives actuarial analysis, with staff explaining that a decision not to take jurisdiction means the bill is not treated as impacting the relevant retirement or health plans for purposes of that analysis. After that, the committee began reviewing bill drafts for jurisdiction. The first draft, bill draft 33, would automatically renew pre-tax elections for dental and vision coverage during open enrollment instead of requiring annual re-election. Members debated whether it had any actuarial impact, noting the state does not pay those premiums directly, and the discussion was still underway when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Again, we discussed this yesterday.
• We discussed it in the work group.
• That was discussed at length.
• What is the legislation?
• Because I'm always wary of legislation by words that didn't go through legislation versus actual legislation

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But any other discussion?
• ,<00:34:53.679> a to one side of the discussion, a to one side of the discussion, a discussion
• Discussion on the standing committee amendment. Any discussion on the amendment?
• Discussion on the bill.
• Discussion on the bill. Discussion on the bill.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any further discussion?
• Any further discussion?
• Any further discussion?
• Any further discussion?
• Any further discussion?

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The House took up Senate File 3432, a public safety bill requiring identifying equipment and insignia to be removed from emergency vehicles sold to the public. The chamber first adopted a House language amendment, then debated a broader security package that would fund judicial and courthouse security, Capitol security measures, short-term protection for legislators facing credible threats, State Patrol deficiency funding, and additional BCA analysts and investigators to assess threats statewide. Supporters framed the bill as necessary to protect public safety, democracy, and First Amendment activity at the Capitol and courthouses; they also said the package was pared down from larger requests and based on security reviews. The House adopted an A-1 amendment clarifying that BCA staff could investigate threats statewide, and later rejected a Schultz A-3 amendment that would have eliminated all appropriations in the bill. The A-3 was defeated on a 37-94 vote after the House upheld the Speaker’s ruling that a proposed school-safety secondary amendment was not germane, with that appeal decided 69-62. A major theme of debate was whether the Legislature should prioritize security for members and the Capitol before passing school safety funding. Several members argued they could not support spending tens of millions on Capitol and legislative security without first funding school safety for all students, including public, charter, private, and tribal schools. Others defended the bill as necessary because of recent threats and violence, including the June 14 tragedy, and said the Capitol security changes were based on professional recommendations. Some members also criticized the new security setup as overly restrictive or “security theater,” while supporters said the measures were needed to keep the public, staff, and lawmakers safe. After the A-3 was defeated, the bill was read for third time and members continued floor debate. The discussion remained split between those emphasizing immediate Capitol and legislative security needs and those insisting school safety should come first. Representative Agbaje then moved to table the bill, and the clerk began a roll call on that motion.