Transcript Highlights:

• </c><02:21:04.840><c> all</c><02:21:05.080><c> would</c><02:21:05.880><c> understand</c><02:21:06.880
• that our officers<02:21:08.880><c> are</c><02:21:09.200><c> out</c><02:21:09.520><c> there</c><02:21
• ><02:21:10.920><c> that</c><02:21:11.120><c> they</c><02:21:11.520><c> can</c><02:21:12.520><c> and</
• ><c> sure</c><02:21:16.080><c> that</c><02:21:16.240><c> we</c><02:21:16.399><c> let</c><02:21:16.600
• </c><02:21:19.960><c> was</c><02:21:20.080><c> a</c><02:21:20.200><c> seven</c><02:21:20.840><c> year

Bills: HR30

Keywords: honor, legacy, Jimmy Carter, human rights, presidential achievements, diplomacy, Georgia, Nobel Peace Prize, James Earl Carter Jr., President Carter, Rosalynn Carter, Plains Georgia, Georgia politics, House resolution, memorial resolution, tribute, condolences, bipartisan, Carter Center, democracy

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> So<00:21:04.320><c> there's</c><00:21:04.640><c> some</c><00:21:05.600><c> further</c><00:21:06.000
• Um this<01:21:46.960><c> is</c><01:21:47.679><c> we're</c><01:21:48.000><c> not</c><01:21:48.159><c>
• </c><01:21:50.239><c> Um</c><01:21:50.880><c> it's</c><01:21:51.199><c> not</c><01:21:51.679><c> I</c
• Um it's not I do think<01:21:52.159><c> we</c><01:21:52.400><c> were</c><01:21:52.800><c> um</c><01:21
• So I I called<02:21:00.560><c> them</c><02:21:00.800><c> to</c><02:21:00.960><c> ask</c><02:21:01.200

Committee: House Education Policy and Administration

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:21:06.000><c> to</c><00:21:06.159><c> me</c><00:21:06.320><c> is</c><00:21:06.640><c> is</c><
• <c> I</c><00:21:12.000><c> think</c><00:21:12.120><c> it'll</c><00:21:12.320><c> be</c><00:21:12.520>
• </c><00:21:28.400><c> the</c><00:21:28.919><c> floor</c><00:21:29.919><c> but</c><00:21:30.080><c> I<
• ><c> the</c><00:21:52.360><c> first</c><00:21:52.840><c> of</c><00:21:53.039><c> the</c><00:21:53.279
• ><c> to</c><00:21:57.600><c> the</c><00:21:57.840><c> house</c><00:21:58.840><c> and</c><00:21:59.200

Summary: The committee first took up SB 534, a measure concerning development in Kakaʻako Makai involving the Hawaii Community Development Authority and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The chairs explained that the hearing was decision-making only and no testimony would be accepted, though members could ask clarifying questions. The chair outlined amendments to clarify HCDA’s approval process, require an environmental impact statement before residential development proposals are submitted, require Department of Health documentation on hazardous substances, and specify that only OHA-owned parcels would be eligible for certain residential development with a 400-foot height limit and maximum floor area ratio of 10.0. The amendments also addressed affordability, owner-occupancy, association fees, and a special fund, while noting Attorney General concerns that the fee could be construed as a tax and suggesting further review by Judiciary and Ways and Means. Members discussed the affordability threshold, with one senator suggesting 160% AMI instead of 140% due to high housing costs and concern that essential workers could be priced out. Others raised concerns about Native Hawaiian affordability, the long-term effect of perpetuity restrictions, and whether the process would protect OHA’s interests. An HCDA representative said 140% AMI was used in existing reserve housing rules and that lower thresholds could make development economically infeasible. OHA and other supporters said the proposal was still early in planning and emphasized the need for public hearings, community input, and compliance with environmental and remediation standards. The committees voted to pass SB 534 with amendments: Water and Land approved it 4-1, and Hawaiian Affairs also adopted the chair’s recommendation, with one member excused and one voting no. The meeting then moved to SB 3, relating to water resource management. The bill would authorize the Commission on Water Resource Management to retain independent legal counsel, create an executive director position, allow challenges to emergency orders under certain conditions, establish fines for water use offenses, and revise emergency and shortage declaration procedures; Red Hill-related provisions were noted as removed from this version. Testimony was largely supportive, including from DLNR, the Board of Water Supply, OHA, and Sierra Club, with OHA stressing the measure’s importance to Native Hawaiian water rights and past litigation. A Department of Hawaiian Home Lands representative supported the bill with amendments and recommended explicit language directing the commission chair or designee to advocate for water rights and reservations for homelands. The chair indicated the committees would use the prior Senate-passed version as the basis for further action, and the discussion then moved on to SB 130, a search-and-rescue reimbursement bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Amendment number 21 is offered by Senator Rush. The clerk will please read.
• Amendment number 21 by Mr. Rush: loyalty programs. Question comes on adoption of the amendment.
• The base bill creates an interim notice requirement within the first six months of new Chapter 93M's
• The base bill creates an interim notice requirement within the first six months of new Chapter 93M's
• It also provides, it recognizes, I should say, that some violations of Chapter 93M may need immediate

Summary: The Senate opened with the Pledge of Allegiance, recognized several guests in the chamber, and adopted a resolution congratulating Coleman-Nee on election as National Commander of the Disabled American Veterans. It also took up several local and personnel matters, including a sick leave bank for Emily Cullick and later Paul Stavarski, and local bills affecting the town of Weston and a Dorchester housing/library procurement exemption; those measures were advanced to third reading or engrossment as appropriate. The chamber also suspended Joint Rule 12 to refer several House petitions to committees. The main business was Senate No. 2516, the Massachusetts Data Privacy Act, which came before the Senate on a Ways and Means substitute (Senate Document 2608). Senators Creem, Moore, Charles, Feingold, Keenan, and others spoke in support, describing the bill as a comprehensive consumer privacy measure with data minimization rules, limits on sensitive data, protections for minors, and strong Attorney General enforcement. Several amendments were debated, with many rejected or withdrawn, while some were adopted, including provisions on geolocation data protections, opting out of targeted advertising, affiliate and merger/acquisition protections, internal operations exemptions, parental access to child data, and a Ways and Means amendment. A number of other amendments on employee data, union data, loyalty programs, AI training, reporting, and related issues were either not adopted or held/withdrawn. After the amendment process, the Senate adopted the amended Ways and Means substitute and ordered the bill to a third reading. The bill was then passed to be engrossed on a roll call vote of 40-0. The Senate also adopted an order to adjourn to the following Monday at 11:00 a.m. and to dispense with printing a calendar. The session adjourned in memory of Darrow Logan Alexander of South Boston.

Transcript Highlights:

• We heard from a lot of people who recommended 21 and over.
• The next section is a prohibition on sale to minors under 21 years of age.
• It's 21 now than it was 18. But is there any other real differences in here?
• It's 21 now than it was 18. But is there any other real differences in here?
• Chairman, if I can read it, this goes way back to September 21, 1997.

Committee: Joint Legislative Management

Transcript Highlights:

• 21:24.640><c> center</c><00:21:25.120><c> electricity</c><00:21:26.000><c> demand</c><00:21:26.520><c
• <00:21:33.600><c> places</c><00:21:34.240><c> the</c><00:21:34.360><c> costs</c><00:21:34.840><c> associated
• I<01:21:01.480><c> realize</c><01:21:01.800><c> that</c><01:21:01.920><c> it</c><01:21:01.960><c> was
• </c><01:21:03.000><c> I</c><01:21:03.040><c> just</c><01:21:03.240><c> wanted</c><01:21:03.400><c> to
• </c><01:21:10.840><c> Does</c><01:21:11.040><c> this</c><01:21:11.320><c> now</c><01:21:11.840><c> strike

Transcript Highlights:

• In 2025 alone, Castilian conducted 21 flight tests — 21 flight tests.
• They've conducted 21 flight tests of their Blackbeard hypersonic missile and are driving at maximum speed
• Hispanic Cultural Center, for a term commencing on March 23, 2025, and expiring on July 21, 2027.
• 221, Sections 3 through 7; Laws 2008, Chapter 16, Section 4; and Laws 2009, Chapter 255, Section 2;
• ... ...Chapter 59A, Article 52, NMSA 1978, providing that a homeowners association shall not prohibit

Transcript Highlights:

• and so<00:21:02.080><c> they're</c><00:21:02.800><c> using</c><00:21:03.360><c> these</c><00:21:03.720
• :04.800><c> for</c><00:21:05.000><c> people</c><00:21:05.280><c> to</c><00:21:05.400><c> bet</c><00:21
• ><c> on</c><00:21:08.880><c> all</c><00:21:09.080><c> sorts</c><00:21:09.480><c> of</c><00:21:09.640>
• </c><00:21:15.640><c> do</c><00:21:15.960><c> would</c><00:21:16.160><c> be</c><00:21:16.360><c> to</
• ><c> say</c><00:21:17.160><c> that</c><00:21:18.040><c> while</c><00:21:18.360><c> we</c><00:21:18.520

Committee: Senate State and Local Government

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:21:04.360><c> okay</c><00:21:05.200><c> one</c><00:21:05.799><c> thing</c><00:21:06.000><c> that<
• ><c> where</c><00:21:12.520><c> the</c><00:21:12.679><c> fund</c><00:21:13.120><c> or</c><00:21:13.400
• ><c> so</c><00:21:23.120><c> still</c><00:21:23.440><c> a</c><00:21:23.600><c> work</c><00:21:23.760>
• <00:21:36.640><c> be</c><00:21:36.799><c> in</c><00:21:36.919><c> charge</c><00:21:37.159><c> of</c><
• <00:21:40.159><c> I'm</c><00:21:40.880><c> I</c><00:21:41.000><c> think</c><00:21:41.679><c> our</c><

Committee: Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection

Summary: The joint Senate hearing focused primarily on SB 1201, a wildfire measure that would create a wildfire recovery fund and allow securitization for electric utilities. Hawaiian Electric strongly supported the bill, saying it would help protect customers, property owners, insurers, and the broader economy from future catastrophic wildfire liability while improving the utility’s credit profile and lowering financing costs. Support also came from DCCA Consumer Advocacy, the Attorney General’s office on written comments, Ulupono Initiative, Clearway Energy Group, IBEW Local 1260, Par Hawaii, KIUC, the Chamber of Commerce Hawaiʻi, Plus Power, and numerous organizations and individuals. Opponents or commenters raised concerns about the liability cap, victim compensation process, and fund structure, including the Hawaiʻi Association for Justice, the Hawaiʻi Regional Council of Carpenters, and the Hawaiʻi Insurance Council; Henry Curtis of Life of the Land supported the concept of a fund but questioned the catastrophe threshold and whether the fund would be empty without a prudency finding. Much of the discussion centered on whether the proposed fund would actually help restore Hawaiian Electric to investment grade, with senators comparing the proposal to California’s wildfire fund. Hawaiian Electric said the bill was only one part of a broader process, alongside physical risk reduction and settlement finalization, and argued that without the bill the utility would not regain investment grade. Senators also questioned the proposed $1 billion fund size, the fairness of ratepayer contributions versus shareholder contributions, and whether customers should pay for consulting and administrative costs; Hawaiian Electric said its proposed amendment would remove those consulting-related charges. The company also said the fund would accrue interest and, if unused, could be returned to customers, and that there would be replenishment and supplemental contribution mechanisms if the fund were exhausted. The Attorney General’s office said it still had further amendments to discuss, and the departments had not yet resolved where the fund should reside administratively, though Hawaiian Electric said it believed DCCA was the appropriate place but was open to alternatives. KIUC requested two amendments. No vote or final committee action was taken during the hearing, and the measure remained under discussion with questions and proposed amendments still outstanding.

Transcript Highlights:

• Under Section 4 of Chapter 94G of the General Laws, the Cannabis Commission is encouraged to establish
• There are very strict rules that prevent people under 21 from going into a dispensary.
• The regulation requires that 85% of the audience be reasonably expected to be 21 years of age or older
• data shows that more than 20% of the Massachusetts population is under 18, and 25% to 30% is under 21
• So more than 15% of the cannabis billboard audience is under 21 in Massachusetts.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy

Summary: The Joint Committee on Cannabis held a hearing on a package of cannabis bills focused on equity funding, delivery expansion, advertising restrictions, medical use, first responders, and ownership limits. Testimony strongly supported S. 87/H. 184 to direct a larger share of cannabis revenue into the Cannabis Social Equity Trust Fund and related equity programs, with speakers arguing the current funding is insufficient and that automatic transfers would better support businesses and communities harmed by the war on drugs. Several witnesses also backed H. 145/S. 89 to allow licensed cannabis delivery into municipalities that ban retail sales and to hotels, saying current rules unfairly limit social equity delivery operators and consumer access. There was also support for H. 176 on medical cannabis eligibility and S. 76 on cannabis use by first responders, while H. 177/H. 178 on new taxes drew opposition from several business owners who said the industry is already heavily burdened and overtaxed. A major point of debate was S. 94/H. 157, which would prohibit billboard advertising for non-prescription marijuana. Public health advocates, parents, and neuroscientists argued that cannabis billboards normalize use, are seen by youth, and are difficult to regulate effectively under the current 85% adult-audience standard. They urged a public health approach similar to tobacco restrictions. In contrast, several industry witnesses opposed further advertising limits, saying cannabis businesses already face strict marketing rules, billboards are privately owned, and additional restrictions would hurt small operators and raise First Amendment concerns. Some witnesses also criticized the proposed increase in ownership caps and consolidation provisions in the broader cannabis bill, warning they would favor large multistate companies over small and social equity businesses. Committee members asked questions about billboard ownership, enforcement of the current advertising rules, and the legal basis for restricting sign content. Witnesses and members also discussed the Cannabis Control Commission’s role, the difficulty of enforcing audience-composition standards, and whether delivery should be treated more like alcohol. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chair noted that written testimony would continue to be accepted.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's primarily Chapter 115, which includes the annuity.
• In fact, right now we have a Chapter 115 working group that's created.
• , July of '21, and October of '22.
• Those are the Chapter 257 rate increases.
• So that is, you know, $388 million is Chapter 257 annualization.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Ways and Means

Summary: The hearing opened with remarks from Senate Chair Robyn Kennedy and House Chair Chynah Tyler, who emphasized that the fiscal year 2026 hearing was focused on the Health and Human Services budget, asked members to keep questions budget-related, and noted that no public testimony would be taken. They also highlighted the choice of Doherty Memorial High School as the venue to showcase Worcester’s investment in career and technical education. Committee members then introduced themselves before the first panel, the Executive Office of Veterans Services and the state veterans homes, began testimony. Secretary John Santiago said the governor’s FY26 proposal would support implementation of the HERO Act, which he said is now about 95% implemented, including higher disabled veteran annuities, expanded behavioral health benefits, and other service expansions. He described efforts to reduce veteran homelessness, including nearly $20 million in ARPA-funded housing and outreach initiatives, and said the agency has delivered more than 100,000 supportive services to nearly 8,500 veterans. Leaders from the Chelsea and Holyoke veterans homes reported on staffing, quality measures, electronic medical records, and major construction projects at both facilities, including a new Chelsea campus and the new Holyoke home. Members asked about funding transfers, geographic equity in access to the homes, outreach to women veterans and veterans of color, suicide prevention, Gold Star family support, and the impact of federal uncertainty; Santiago said the homes are now licensed and certified, that the current budget is sufficient, and that the agency is expanding engagement and data collection. The second panel, the Office of the Veteran Advocate, testified that its FY26 request is about $3.3 million, up from the current $2 million, to cover staffing, a larger office, and higher technology costs. Veteran Advocate Bob Notch said the office is a new independent oversight agency created in 2022 to examine systems, coordinate with local veteran service officers, and investigate fatalities or serious harm involving veterans in state care. He said the office’s work depends on research, data, and collaboration with other agencies, and that current funding is only enough for minimum operations. In response to questions, Notch and Deputy Commissioner David O’Callaghan discussed the difficulty of tracking veteran suicides, the need for better data across agencies, and the office’s role as an oversight body rather than a direct service provider. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• :25.799><c> it</c><00:21:25.919><c> then</c><00:21:26.080><c> you</c><00:21:26.159><c> guys</c><00:21
• </c><00:21:28.640><c> almost</c><00:21:28.880><c> if</c><00:21:29.000><c> you</c><00:21:29.080><c> got
• <c> build</c><00:21:29.480><c> a</c><00:21:29.600><c> menu</c><00:21:30.000><c> then</c><00:21:30.120
• ><c> the</c><00:21:33.120><c> menu</c><00:21:33.440><c> building</c><00:21:33.799><c> is</c><00:21:33.919
• ><c> so</c><00:21:38.320><c> you</c><00:21:38.400><c> know</c><00:21:38.520><c> we</c><00:21:38.640><

Summary: The Committee on Education heard several Department of Education-related bills and received extensive testimony on school meals and veteran diplomas. HB 628 would restore authority for the Department of Education to issue high school diplomas to veterans whose schooling was interrupted by World War II, the Korean War, or the Vietnam War. The superintendent testified in support, explaining the authority had sunset in 2020 and describing the measure as a way to recognize veterans. No opposition or questions were raised, and the bill was left without further action in the excerpt. The committee also heard HB 1074 and HB 110, both supported by the Department of Education and the School Facilities Authority. HB 1074 was described as a cleanup measure to clarify land-related language and make the statute more consistent across state agencies and DOE. HB 110 concerned benchmarking and the farm-to-school/local food effort; DOE and several supporters, including county councils, the Hawaii Public Health Institute, the Hawaii Farm Bureau, and the Hawaii Farmers Union, said the bill would help align metrics and support the 30% local food goal by 2030. Members questioned DOE about progress, and DOE said it was working on menus, procurement, and coordination with distributors and farmers. A Farm to School representative said the current bottleneck was poor communication with farmers and the need to bring them into planning earlier; DOE said it was still figuring out the process and that island-based procurement and separate RFPs were being explored. HB 328, relating to school meals and local resource food and plant-based options, drew the most testimony. DOE testified with comments, and the Attorney General’s office suggested revisions to clarify that the bill would apply to both DOE and charter schools, to separate public and private funds if donations or grants are accepted, and to add standards if nonprofit or private entities receive public money. Supporters included HSTA, the Hawaii Public Health Institute/Farm to School Network, Climate Protection Hawaii, the Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council, and numerous individuals and organizations. Supporters emphasized healthier school meals, student-requested plant-based options, support for local farms, and the 30% by 2030 goal. Some testimony urged more local purchasing and raised concerns about decentralization, while DOE said it was considering island-based procurement and separate contracts to better support local producers. No votes were taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:21:03.919><c> Uh</c><00:21:04.320><c> in</c><00:21:04.480><c> addition,</c><00:21:04.880><c>
• </c><00:21:06.000><c> of</c><00:21:06.159><c> their</c><00:21:06.320><c> own</c><00:21:06.799><c> and
• we</c><00:21:25.280><c> have</c><00:21:25.440><c> now</c><00:21:25.679><c> that</c><00:21:26.000><c>
• </c><00:21:38.720><c> but</c><00:21:38.960><c> I'd</c><00:21:39.200><c> have</c><00:21:39.360><c> to<
• </c><00:21:41.919><c> Uh</c><00:21:42.159><c> and</c><00:21:42.400><c> I</c><00:21:42.640><c> can</c>

Summary: The committee heard from the Department of Corrections first about Wellpath’s medical services contract and the contractor’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy. DOC officials said Wellpath’s reorganization plan was confirmed in May 2025, the contract was automatically assumed, and services have continued without lapses. They said DOC has not seen any reduction in care, staffing problems, or known impact on Kentucky operations, and that DOC and health services staff meet with Wellpath almost weekly. Members asked whether “emergence” meant discharge from bankruptcy; staff clarified that Wellpath has not yet been discharged and is still in the process of paying debts. The discussion then shifted to the Department of Juvenile Justice’s proposed high-acuity juvenile mental health treatment facility. DJJ said the facility is still in the conceptual and preliminary programming stage, with no full design funding yet and no entry into the formal A/B process with DECA. The proposed facility would have 24 beds total, split into 16 clinical beds and 8 assessment/stabilization beds, and would need to separate males and females as well as high- and low-risk youth under Senate Bill 162. Officials said the concept was developed with DJJ and CHFS mental health staff and outside design experts, and that the project was submitted in the capital plan for consideration. Members questioned the need for the facility, the estimated construction and staffing costs, and whether the state has enough youth to justify it. DJJ said the number of youth needing this level of care changes frequently, that they currently have one youth in Pennsylvania and typically send one to five youth out of state each year, and that out-of-state placement is increasingly difficult. Officials argued that a dedicated facility would reduce delays, keep youth closer to home, and avoid the need to retrofit multiple detention centers. Some members expressed concern that the projected operating costs seemed high compared with the small number of current out-of-state placements, and asked for more information on annual out-of-state spending and the number of youth who would qualify for the facility.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:21:01.840><c> of</c><00:21:02.000><c> their</c><00:21:02.159><c> own</c><00:21:02.720><c> and
• we</c><00:21:21.120><c> have</c><00:21:21.280><c> now</c><00:21:21.520><c> that</c><00:21:21.840><c>
• 22.960><c> for</c><00:21:23.200><c> a</c><00:21:23.440><c> high</c><00:21:23.880><c> acuity</c><00:21
• </c><00:21:34.559><c> but</c><00:21:34.799><c> I'd</c><00:21:35.039><c> have</c><00:21:35.200><c> to<
• </c><00:21:37.760><c> Uh</c><00:21:38.000><c> and</c><00:21:38.240><c> I</c><00:21:38.480><c> can</c>

Summary: The committee met to hear updates from the Department of Juvenile Justice and the Department of Corrections on two related issues: a proposed high-acuity juvenile mental health treatment facility and medical services contracts, including the impact of Wellpath’s bankruptcy proceedings. At the start, the chair agreed to hear the Department of Corrections first so members could get context on the medical contract before turning to DJJ’s proposal. DOC officials said Wellpath, the department’s comprehensive medical and mental health provider since 2013, was awarded its current contract through a 2021 procurement process. They reported that Wellpath’s Chapter 11 reorganization plan had been confirmed and that the company had transitioned ownership to lenders, but had not yet fully completed the bankruptcy process. DOC said there had been no service lapses, no reduction in care, and no known impact on Kentucky vendors or hospitals, and that DOC staff meet with Wellpath almost weekly. Members asked whether the committee had been kept informed and whether the bankruptcy could affect future services or subcontractors. DJJ then presented its concept for a high-acuity facility, explaining that the project is still in the preliminary programming and conceptual stage and has not yet entered the formal design phase with DECA. Officials said the proposal in the capital plan would create a 24-bed facility, with 16 clinical beds and 8 assessment/stabilization beds, to serve justice-involved youth with serious mental health needs. They said the facility would need to separate males and females and high- and low-risk youth, and that current placements often require sending youth out of state to places such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Arkansas, and Texas. Staff said the goal is to centralize treatment, improve safety, and reduce the need for fragmented or out-of-state placements. Committee members questioned the cost estimates, staffing needs, and whether the facility was justified given the small number of youth currently placed out of state. DJJ said the operational estimate includes an unknown medical-contract component and that the number of youth needing the facility can fluctuate because of surges in the juvenile population. Officials also said they had consulted with South Carolina, which is developing a similar facility, and noted that renovating existing facilities was considered but could be more expensive or impractical than building a separate site. No votes or formal actions were taken during the discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• <c> set</c><00:21:07.720><c> forward</c><00:21:08.480><c> there</c><00:21:08.600><c> aren't</c><00:21
• c><00:21:11.000><c> just</c><00:21:11.080><c> want</c><00:21:11.200><c> to</c><00:21:11.360><c> make<
• that clear<00:21:12.480><c> R</c><00:21:13.000><c> clor</c><00:21:13.440><c> thank</c><00:21:13.600>
• :14.960><c> to</c><00:21:15.159><c> do</c><00:21:15.400><c> that</c><00:21:15.679><c> which</c><00:21
• ><00:21:16.840><c> you</c><00:21:17.080><c> 150</c><00:21:17.720><c> page</c><00:21:18.520><c> 990</c

Committee: House Higher Education Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• Um<00:21:05.680><c> but</c><00:21:05.800><c> I</c><00:21:05.880><c> think</c><00:21:06.200><c> I</c><
• 00:21:06.240><c> think</c><00:21:06.440><c> for</c><00:21:06.560><c> certain</c><00:21:07.160><c> as<
• 00:21:16.160><c> would</c><00:21:16.320><c> need</c><00:21:16.560><c> for</c><00:21:16.680><c> a</c>
• </c><00:21:18.280><c> Um,</c><00:21:18.600><c> I</c><00:21:18.680><c> think</c><00:21:18.880><c> the<
• <00:21:23.680><c> from</c><00:21:23.880><c> the</c><00:21:23.960><c> start</c><00:21:24.320><c> to</c

Committee: Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> 45 to 21. 45 to 21.
• </c><00:21:05.360><c> And</c><00:21:05.480><c> so,</c><00:21:06.160><c> wanting</c><00:21:07.040><c>
• /c><00:21:12.920><c> is</c><00:21:13.480><c> uh</c><00:21:13.960><c> a</c><00:21:14.040><c> a</c><00:
• 21:14.080><c> narrow</c><00:21:15.040><c> uh</c><00:21:15.240><c> measure</c><00:21:15.800><c> to</c>
• </c><00:21:16.880><c> that</c><00:21:17.040><c> problem,</c><00:21:17.520><c> and</c><00:21:18.080><c

Summary: The conference committee on House File 1141, the Omnibus Housing Finance and Policy Bill, reviewed the fiscal spreadsheet and policy language for the agreement. Staff explained the major funding items, including appropriations for greater Minnesota workforce housing, manufactured home park infrastructure grants, family homelessness prevention, supportive housing, a tenant hotline, and housing infrastructure bonds, along with a cancellation of unused Tyler settlement funds and a reallocation of Housing Development Fund earnings. Staff said the package was budget neutral over the forecast window. The policy walk-through also covered provisions on livestreaming Housing Finance Agency board meetings, limits on administrative retentions for new grant programs, restrictions and reporting on Housing Development Fund transfers and earnings, clarifying language for local public housing, an exemption related to lived-experience engagement, and access for legislative fiscal staff to agency accounting information. Members then considered several amendments. The A12 amendment, allowing certain local governments to invest long-term funds in housing-related investments, was adopted after a roll call showed support from all three caucuses. The A16 manufactured housing bill of rights amendment, which would have addressed park-owner practices, purchase opportunities, enforcement, and rent increases, was not adopted. The A18 amendment to allow additional flags in HOAs and other areas was also not adopted. The A17 amendment to limit private equity ownership of single-family homes to 100 units was not adopted. The A13 amendment to preempt local rent control was not adopted. Members on both sides said some of the rejected issues warranted further discussion in future sessions, while supporters argued they were needed to address housing affordability and ownership pressures. In closing discussion on the bill as a whole, members from both chambers praised the bipartisan process, the staff work, and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency’s collaboration. Supporters said the agreement would help build thousands of homes across the state, assist vulnerable Minnesotans, and improve transparency and accountability in housing programs. They also noted the bill’s mix of single-family, multifamily, manufactured housing, homelessness prevention, and policy reforms. The committee expressed intent to move the agreement forward to the House floor and ultimately to the governor.

Transcript Highlights:

• Zurich,<00:21:01.360><c> if</c><00:21:01.520><c> you</c><00:21:01.600><c> could</c><00:21:01.760><c>
• move</c><00:21:01.919><c> to</c><00:21:02.159><c> the</c><00:21:02.320><c> next</c> Zurich, if you could
• &gt;&gt; Yes.<00:21:05.039><c> The</c><00:21:05.360><c> final</c><00:21:06.080><c> uh</c><00:21:06.640
• ><c> group</c><00:21:07.039><c> is</c><00:21:07.360><c> the</c><00:21:07.919><c> advisory</c> &gt;&gt
• </c><00:21:11.360><c> The</c><00:21:11.520><c> office</c><00:21:11.760><c> of</c><00:21:11.919><c> economic

Transcript Highlights:

• :01.360><c> is</c><00:21:01.600><c> going</c><00:21:01.679><c> to</c><00:21:01.760><c> walk</c><00:21
• <00:21:06.640><c> as</c><00:21:06.799><c> a</c><00:21:06.960><c> moral</c><00:21:07.200><c> document<
• ><c> this</c><00:21:09.360><c> side</c><00:21:09.520><c> of</c><00:21:09.600><c> the</c><00:21:09.760
• not just stats<00:21:16.240><c> and</c><00:21:16.400><c> figures</c><00:21:16.640><c> and</c><00:21:
• They<00:21:18.559><c> are</c><00:21:18.720><c> our</c><00:21:18.880><c> parents</c><00:21:19.200><c>

Summary: Minnesota lawmakers and advocates held a press event focused on a special-session budget agreement that would repeal health coverage for undocumented immigrants. Speakers, including Rep. María Isa Pérez-Vega, Sen. Lieman, labor leaders, immigrant advocates, faith leaders, and other DFL/POCI caucus members, argued the repeal would harm about 17,000 people, increase uncompensated care costs, worsen ER and clinic wait times, reduce productivity, and ultimately raise costs for taxpayers and employers. They also said undocumented immigrants contribute significant tax revenue and that the measure was motivated by cruelty and scapegoating rather than fiscal responsibility. Testimony emphasized moral, public health, labor, and faith-based objections. Unidos Minnesota, SEIU Local 26, the Minnesota AFL-CIO, and Pastor Ingred Ramson all framed health care as a human right and said the policy would punish working families, immigrants, and communities of color. Several speakers linked the repeal to broader attacks on immigrants, labor rights, and other social protections, and warned that the compromise budget framework included a “poison pill” tying the health bill to the repeal. POCI caucus members said they had tried unsuccessfully to negotiate alternatives, including changes to paid leave, earned sick and safe time, non-compete bans, premiums, enrollment caps, and protections for children, elders, and people with chronic conditions. They said leadership was not part of the negotiations and expressed disappointment with DFL and governor-level decisions, while also saying they would continue to fight the policy and hold leaders accountable. No vote was taken in the event itself, but speakers repeatedly said the repeal was expected to pass and that they would oppose it and continue organizing in future sessions.

Transcript Highlights:

• and</c><00:21:30.559><c> and</c><00:21:31.039><c> the</c><00:21:31.200><c> threat</c><00:21:31.440><
• </c><00:21:32.960><c> So</c><00:21:33.120><c> that</c><00:21:33.440><c> yes,</c><00:21:33.760><c> we<
• /c><00:21:35.600><c> we</c><00:21:35.840><c> do</c><00:21:36.080><c> like</c><00:21:36.320><c> we</c>
• ><c> have</c><00:21:40.760><c> regulation</c><00:21:41.760><c> and</c><00:21:42.000><c> as</c><00:21:
• /c><00:21:44.400><c> is</c><00:21:45.200><c> my</c><00:21:45.440><c> rule</c><00:21:45.679><c> of</c>

Summary: The subcommittee took up the pooled risk management program bill and reviewed a new amendment drafted with input from the Insurance Department and Legislative Services. Department witnesses explained that the proposal would move oversight of pooled risk management programs from the Secretary of State’s office to the Insurance Department, add a licensure requirement, preserve the programs’ non-insurer status, and exempt them from third-party administrator licensure. They also described a series of solvency tools in the draft, including financial reporting, risk-based capital standards, minimum capitalization, investment limits, commissioner examination and enforcement authority, rulemaking authority, merger and affiliate-transaction review, confidentiality protections, and a separability clause. A major theme of the discussion was that pooled risk management programs differ from commercial insurers because the risk remains with the member local governments rather than being backed by a state guarantee fund. Witnesses said the bill is designed to emphasize solvency over return of premium and to give the Insurance Department a regulatory “toolbox” to prevent insolvency, including a proposed $5 million excess or stop-loss coverage benchmark, optional accessible policies, and a requirement that boards vote on dividends or premium returns when capital exceeds 600% of risk-based capital. Members questioned how this approach differed from the original Secretary of State bill and whether assessments on towns would still be possible; the department responded that the new framework would allow more flexible oversight and alternatives to immediate court action. The committee also discussed why the statute should continue to say the programs are not insurers, with the department explaining that this preserves their autonomy and avoids applying unrelated insurance laws and premium taxes. Members asked about the department’s workload and were told the department believed it could absorb the new duties without additional funding. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion provided.