Transcript Highlights:

• back into that.
• need to pay back into that. need to pay back into that. Okay.<00:36:43.200> Yeah.
• that and come back to it another day? that and come back to it another day?
• Then MnDOT subsequently came back 35% additional, so it went back up to $254,000.
• /c> came back 35% additional so it went back came back 35% additional so it went back up<01:22:00.000

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You may be paying for phone lines. You may be paying for utilities, electricity.
• It basically goes back into the House budget. House budget? It's not. Hang on.
• The rest of it goes back into the House fund.
• I know I think I pay one of the highest rents in the state.
• I know I think I pay one of the highest rents in the state.

Summary: The committee met briefly, called the roll, confirmed a quorum, and adopted the June 3, 2024 minutes without objection. Staff then reviewed the purpose of the House supplemental allowance resolution, explaining that members receive up to $1,500 per month for reimbursable office and district expenses such as rent, utilities, printing, postage, travel within the district, and related office costs. Members also discussed the existing carryover rules, including a $3,000 general carryover and an additional $6,000 for printed materials, with unspent amounts reverting to the House budget. Several members asked for clarification about what expenses are currently covered and how reimbursements work, including district office rent, phone and internet bills, per diem, out-of-state travel, conference registration, cell phones, and portable hotspots. The clerk and executive counsel explained that some items are paid from the supplemental account, while others, such as certain conference registration fees or appointed travel per diem, are paid directly by the House operating account. Members also raised concerns about whether using supplemental funds for lodging during session would require a resolution amendment and whether it could create tax or ethics issues, including possible double-dipping with per diem. A motion was made to consider allowing excess supplemental funds to be used for lodging costs for members who live more than 50 miles from the Capitol, but after discussion the motion was withdrawn so the committee could study the issue further and consult a CPA. Members also discussed whether the monthly supplemental amount should be increased in light of inflation and rising office rents, noting that any change would have to be made by the executive committee for the next term. The meeting ended with a motion to adjourn, which was adopted without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• I've got a welcome on the back row in... I've got a welcome on the back row in the north gallery.
• Your bride’s in the back, that’s why. Your bride’s in the back, that’s why.
• It's our pay bill.
• He's back like he never left. He's back like he never left.
• We'll be back later today. We'll be back later today if you want to just set it aside or not.

Keywords: MS House Floor - 1 April, 2026; 10:00 AM, 925, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm back again.
• I apologize, back up.
• <01:57:48.560> No, them to to pay part? No, them to to pay part?
• Um, so my question goes back to um, there are a lot of children pay for their own college education.
• they pay or not. they pay or not.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We know that families are struggling to pay bills at the end of the month, pay the rent, to endure these
• gas prices... ...struggling to pay bills at the end of the month, pay the rent, to endure these gas
• But let's take $668 million to pay the interest. That's the... $668 million to pay the interest.
• Okay, we are back on to concurrence file on number nine, we're going to Okay, we are back on to concurrence
• I stand here before you, and I refuse to balance this budget off the backs of the sick, off the backs

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly convened, established a quorum after a roll call, observed a moment of silence for the fatal B-52 crash at Edwards Air Force Base, and proceeded with routine procedural business, including re-referrals of numerous Senate bills to different committees and several rule suspensions to allow bills to be heard or moved. Assembly Member DeMaio attempted to amend and then return AB 109 to the Senate to add health care premium reductions, but the motions were ruled out of order and his request to suspend the rules failed on a 13-45 vote. The main floor action was on AB 109, the 2026-27 state budget. Assembly Member Gabriel presented the budget as balancing fiscal responsibility with protections for health care, schools, housing, wildfire prevention, and the safety net, while opponents argued it raised costs, underfunded education and public safety, and relied on gimmicks. Supporters emphasized investments in hospitals, Medi-Cal, IHSS, child care, food banks, housing, and reserves, and repeatedly defended the budget’s approach to Proposition 36 funding and prison closures. After extensive debate, the Assembly voted to concur in the Senate amendments to AB 109, and the bill was immediately transmitted to the Governor. Later, the Assembly took up SCR 89 on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Members from several caucuses spoke in support, arguing DEI is central to equal opportunity, civil rights, and California’s identity, and warning against federal efforts to roll back such programs. Assembly Member DeMaio spoke in opposition, saying DEI treats people differently based on immutable characteristics. The transcript ends during that debate, with the resolution still under consideration.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:22:48.559> fees they file monthly reports and pay fees they file monthly reports and pay
• Newber I'm sure we'll let you get back Newber I'm sure we'll let you get back to<00:36:34.040>
• <01:18:07.159> state federal funds to help us um pay state federal funds to help us um pay
• <01:21:35.159> back increasing and it's not coming back back increasing and it's not coming
• back back down<01:21:37.120> um<01:21:37.920> we<01:21:38.360> our<01:21:38.800

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Department of Safety presented an overview of highway fund and unrestricted revenue collections, focusing on the Division of Administration, the Road Toll Bureau, and the Division of Motor Vehicles. Amy Newbery explained that the main unrestricted funding sources are highway funds and general funds, with highway fund revenue of about $263 million in FY 2024 and a FY 2025 projection of $261.2 million. She said revenue growth has been modest and has not kept pace with costs, creating structural deficits that required general fund transfers of $50 million in FY 2022-23 and another $10 million in FY 2024-25 to balance the fund. Jennifer Hall described Road Toll operations, including motor fuel tax collection at the distributor level, compliance enforcement, and licensing for fuel distributors, transporters, IFTA carriers, and oil discharge/pollution control. Members asked about IFTA, dyed-fuel enforcement, the possibility of using the state forensic lab for dyed-fuel testing, and whether audit positions had been filled; the department said it recently hired a part-time fuel enforcement officer, still uses IRS testing, could explore lab testing, and had no audit vacancies. Hall also discussed factors affecting fuel-tax revenue, including gas prices, crude oil forecasts, weather, tourism, GDP, and inflation, and said FY 2024 road toll revenue was $127.5 million, above plan, with FY 2025 projected at $127.71 million. The committee then turned to DMV-related revenues. Newbery said motor vehicle registration revenue was $93.1 million in FY 2024 and is projected at $90.4 million in FY 2025, with the state share going directly to the highway fund. Members asked about the state/town fee split, the five-year registration cycle dip, the distribution of registration revenue by vehicle weight category, and the impact of electric-vehicle surcharges; the department said the five-year dip is still occurring and will fade over time, and it would follow up on the weight-category breakdown. The presentation also noted that driver-license revenues have stabilized, inspection revenues remain steady, plea-by-mail revenue was added to the highway fund in FY 2024, and general fund revenues tied to the department are relatively small and have declined as some functions moved to OPLC. No votes or formal actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you use it to pay back the, uh, the bond, which is a worthy deal, but you do have major deferred other
• It goes back to the taxpayers.
• , this is how long it's going to take to pay it back, and this is the total amount of money that you
• Well, if it will be paid back. It will be paid back with interest.
• back?

Transcript Highlights:

• little bit more efficient is uh pay little bit more efficient is uh pay attention<00:04:50.240><
• back so they can put the money back back so they can put the money back where<03:36:33.880> they
• They generally pay.
• This is to entice them to pay sooner so we can be made whole and get back up and functioning again.
• Welcome back. Thank you very much. It's good to be back. Thank you for the record.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Environment and Agriculture Committee held a hearing on HB 566, which would require permit applications for new landfills to include a detailed leachate management plan. The bill sponsor said the measure was prompted by recent reporting on leachate problems at New Hampshire landfills, including alleged violations at a Bethlehem facility and deficiencies at other sites, and argued the bill is meant to improve public health protections without dictating specific treatment methods or hindering innovation. The sponsor also said the proposal was developed with input from the Department of Environmental Services (DES) and industry representatives, and that a forthcoming amendment would revise the bill’s language to better fit the permitting process. The sponsor explained that the amendment would move several requirements out of the contract section and into the planning section, change references such as “permit for construction” to “operating approval,” include landfill expansions, and remove language that could be read as requiring long-term contracts. Questions from members focused on whether the bill would create enforceable consequences if a plan is not followed, whether it would limit operators’ flexibility, and whether existing DES rules already cover the subject. The sponsor said enforcement details should be addressed by DES and emphasized that the bill would not lock operators into any particular contract or technology. The Business and Industry Association testified in opposition to the bill as introduced, saying it appeared unnecessary because DES already regulates leachate through existing rules, including Env 806.53, and has authority to update those rules as technology changes. The witness argued that putting the requirements into statute could freeze the regulatory framework, create conflicts with future rulemaking, and make it harder for DES to respond quickly to new treatment methods or operational issues. No vote or final action was taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• That we have at the pay rates that we are able to pay.
• Offhand, it seems like we have folks who park in the back, and there is loading dock and back of house
• Private business is pointed at that we're not paying good funds, you know, paying our wages and salaries
• So I'm going back to just page 6.
• So in this particular context... pay down, contribute, down payment, because you're not actually pre-paying

Transcript Highlights:

• In fact, the folks coming back.
• The first is about who pays.
• The first is about who pays. And I want to try to stay within your, ...about who pays.
• Should the state pay? Should local governments be paying? Should homeowners be paying?
• Then if they're going to pay into that, they need to get something on the back end, which then covers

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Insurance held an informational hearing on how climate change, wildfire risk, and related catastrophes are affecting California’s insurance market, affordability, and availability. Chair and members framed the issue as a statewide challenge tied to resiliency, land use, utilities, legal liability, and the FAIR Plan. Senator Becker noted the hearing was connected to SB 254 and its recent report, while the Vice Chair emphasized that the state’s current regulatory framework limits flexibility and that industry testimony would also have been useful. Amy Bach of United Policyholders described worsening availability and affordability, driven by climate impacts, insurtech/risk scoring, inflation, and the growth of surplus lines coverage. She said the Sustainable Insurance Strategy is beginning to show progress, but the FAIR Plan remains too large and non-admitted carriers create concerns because they are less regulated and do not share FAIR Plan or guaranty fund obligations. She stressed that mitigation incentives, grants, and voluntary insurer rewards for wildfire-hardening are important, but that many households cannot afford the needed improvements. In response to questions, she said underinsurance remains a major problem, especially after recent fires, and suggested stronger insurer responsibility for replacement-cost estimates or broader replacement-cost endorsements. Actuary Nancy Watkins and Stanford’s Michael Wara argued that California must both reduce wildfire risk and allow actuarially sound pricing if it wants a healthier market. Watkins compared the market to a household with rising expenses and said the state needs a mitigation framework focused on the highest-risk communities, especially older neighborhoods and homes near the wildland-urban interface. Wara said premiums must roughly equal expected claims plus expenses, and that California is “burning down too many houses,” which drives both availability problems and higher rates. He highlighted the role of structure-to-structure spread, older housing stock, utility ignitions, and the need to focus on community hardening, not just vegetation management. Both speakers said mitigation should be targeted, science-based, and sustained rather than one-time or scattered. Frank Freebalt of Cal Poly and Michael Gullner of UC Berkeley continued the discussion on fire modeling and risk reduction. Freebalt said the problem is best understood as a structure ignition and urban conflagration problem, requiring integrated land-use, utility, and community mitigation, with evidence-based priorities and better analytics. He emphasized that the state should focus on the highest-risk intersections first and that targeted mitigation can multiply the effectiveness of suppression and evacuation resources. No votes or formal actions were taken; the hearing was informational and focused on testimony, questions, and policy discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Members back in the game.
• But back to 14:30.
• pay more taxes. pay more taxes.
• They deserve to be able to keep their overtime pay and not have to keep paying taxes on it.
• You would pay tax on it.

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• platforms like Meta and Alphabet pay platforms like Meta and Alphabet pay little<00:04:04.480>
• The difference is paid households pay.
• paying the tax. paying the tax. Representative<00:34:55.040> Joy. Representative Joy.
• <00:42:06.880> radio metro, maybe we would bring back radio metro, maybe we would bring back
• higher taxes, you can opt in and pay higher taxes, you can opt in and pay more<00:42:50.640>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I go way back to: why do government agencies pay taxes? Because they're paying with tax dollars.
• Why do government agencies pay Yeah. Why do government agencies pay taxes?
• /c> about what they pay us, um, pays me about what they pay us, um, pays me $22.38<01:32:31.600> for
• <01:33:44.960> And to pay for this. And to pay for this.
• Welcome back to the table, Miss Grum. Welcome back to the table, Miss Grum.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:23:45.919> and be, if I understand it, we go back and be, if I understand it, we go back
• way that vouchers work is that you pay way that vouchers work is that you pay 30%<00:25:05.360><
• pays to do that. pays to do that.
• your if 30% of your income cannot pay your if 30% of your income cannot pay your<00:28:58.880>
• are able to pay uh to not have to pay are able to pay uh to not have to pay more<00:34:16.399>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And then finally, self-pay and cash pay.
• or a cash pay option.
• Do they expect that I'm paying my premiums, I'm paying my co-pays, I'm paying my co-insurance, I should
• Do they expect that I'm paying my premiums? I'm paying my co-pays. I'm paying my co-insurance.
• And when we say free, we do pay for premiums. Everybody's paying for premiums.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee met to review the history and current treatment of North Dakota health insurance mandates, with presentations from Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota, Sanford Health Plan, the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), and the Insurance Department. The discussion focused on how mandates apply differently to fully insured, self-funded, ACA, Medicaid, and PERS plans; how the state’s benchmark plan and federal essential health benefits affect coverage; and how the existing process requires cost-benefit analysis and, for certain measures, a PERS pilot period before broader application. Presenters also reviewed the long list of existing state mandates, including provider, beneficiary, and coverage requirements, and noted that many were enacted decades ago and have not been revisited despite changes in medical evidence and treatment options. Witnesses from the carriers argued that mandates should be reviewed periodically because some are outdated, can create unintended costs, and may not align with current medical guidance. Examples cited included PSA screening, off-label drug coverage, prior authorization rules, step therapy, and cost-sharing provisions for mental health and substance use treatment. They emphasized that carriers often cover services without a mandate when supported by clinical evidence, and that mandates can shift costs to employers and employees, especially in the fully insured small-group market. They also suggested possible policy improvements such as clearer mandate definitions, better transparency around cost-benefit analyses, a regular 10-year review of mandates, and more timely submission of proposals through the interim process. PERS and the Insurance Department highlighted a recurring tension over what counts as a mandate and when a measure triggers the state’s defrayal obligation under federal law. PERS described its interim committee process, the April 1 deadline for fiscal-impact proposals, and the limited pilot program used for certain measures, noting that only a few bills have gone through the full pilot process. The Insurance Department explained that it views new benefit mandates through the lens of the ACA benchmark plan and essential health benefits, distinguishing true new benefits, such as infertility coverage, from changes to existing benefits, such as telehealth or insulin cost-sharing caps. No votes were taken on policy changes; the meeting was informational, with members asking questions about costs, applicability, transparency, and whether a periodic mandate review should be established.

Transcript Highlights:

• I apologize, I'll back up a little bit.
• We're happy to put that back in.
• It says school districts must pay at least, which is why we actually have some districts who are paying
• We don't go in and take their stipend back or anything like that.
• We do not require that these programs pay for benefits.

Transcript Highlights:

• Back on the bill as amended, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• Okay, we'll come back to you. And thank you. Thank you.
• They pay taxes in our community. They are working.
• They pay taxes in our community. They are working.
• Heap, we're back to you in final time. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The House convened with prayers, the Pledge of Allegiance, guest introductions, and several proclamations and recognitions, including International Mother Language Day, Nurses Day at the Capitol, Environmental Day, Arizona Aerospace Day, Childhelp, Teamsters Local 104, and African American Legislative Day. Attendance was recorded at 57 present, zero absent, and three excused. The chamber also handled routine business such as committee reports, bill referrals, first and second readings, and announcements of upcoming committee meetings. The main floor action centered on House Bill 2785, a tax conformity measure. Members debated it at length, with supporters arguing it would make tax forms legal, align Arizona with federal tax changes, and provide tax relief to taxpayers and small businesses, while opponents said it was an unpaid tax cut for wealthy individuals and corporations that would force cuts to health care, education, SNAP, and other services. The House passed HB 2785 on a 32-26 vote with two not voting and sent it to the Senate. The House then resolved into Committee of the Whole and considered several Health and Human Services and Commerce bills. HB 2190, HB 2206, HB 2396, HB 2442, HB 2448, HB 2688, HB 2689, HB 2690, HB 2796, and HB 2797 were debated, with most receiving do-pass recommendations after amendments. Testimony focused heavily on SNAP policy, including payment error rates, work and training requirements, food restrictions, and waiver authority, with Democrats warning of added burdens and reduced access for eligible families and Republicans arguing the bills would improve accountability, nutrition, and compliance with federal law. HB 2689, which would collect hospital patients’ immigration status on a voluntary basis, drew strong opposition over concerns it would deter people from seeking care; it was still reported out of committee, though a later motion to amend the committee report to show HB 2689 failed was rejected 24-32. The House adopted the Committee of the Whole report, and several bills were referred to engrossing before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• It goes back to the General Fund.
• Moving on to the prospective pay.
• Can't that same person that we're paying for also do that as well, not pay for a contractor?
• Can't that same person that we're paying for also do that as well, not pay for a contractor?
• Adopting a prospective pay model will pay providers before care is delivered, just as private-pay families

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard a lengthy budget and policy discussion on child care, child welfare, and related early education issues, beginning with child care funding and slot utilization. Department of Social Services officials outlined the Governor’s proposed 2026-27 child care budget, including $6.8 billion for child care programs, an $11.5 million Prop. 64-funded disaster repair mini-grant program for licensed facilities affected by 2025 disasters, and projected reductions tied to federal CCDF formula changes and lower Prop. 64 revenues. DSS said the reductions could mean about 4,176 CCTR slots, but emphasized they were assessing how to absorb the cuts without disrupting children currently in care. The LAO supported aligning funding to lower revenues and asked for more detail on the disaster grant program. Senators pressed the department on why so many slots remain uncontracted or unfilled, why unspent funds revert to the General Fund, and whether more flexibility could move dollars from contracts to vouchers; DSS said delays are largely due to infrastructure, licensing, staffing, and enrollment ramp-up, and that it is working on readiness reviews, technical assistance, and possible reallocation of relinquished slots. The committee also discussed Emergency Child Care Bridge reallocations among counties and confirmed that no currently enrolled children would be disenrolled under the proposed slot reductions. A second panel focused on the state’s broader commitment to expand child care and reform reimbursement rates. DSS said California has nearly doubled child care funding in five years and increased monthly children served from about 294,100 in 2019-20 to more than 366,700 currently, while also advancing the single rate structure process through the alternative methodology and a joint labor-management committee report. Stanislaus County Office of Education described local shortages, especially for infant and toddler care, and argued that rate disparities between programs make it harder to sustain mixed delivery systems. Parent Voices California testified that the current system is confusing, unstable, and inequitable, with one speaker describing repeated paperwork burdens, waiting lists, and periods of homelessness while trying to maintain child care. The California Budget and Policy Center argued that only 16% of eligible children were enrolled in 2024, that Universal TK has drawn major resources into school-based care, and that providers remain paid far below the cost of care; it urged more revenue, faster rate reform, and expansion across the mixed delivery system. The LAO estimated that aligning CCTR adjustment factors for three-year-olds and children with disabilities with CSPP would cost $88 million to $131 million ongoing. Senators and staff also discussed the need for deadlines on automation and implementation of the single rate structure, with DSS and CDE noting that policy decisions, system changes, and collective bargaining issues are still being worked through. The committee then reviewed several child care trailer bill proposals. DSS proposed applying the 2026-27 COLA as an increase to cost-of-care-plus payments rather than as a traditional COLA, with $87.8 million General Fund initially proposed; DSS later acknowledged it had omitted CalWORKs Child Care and the Emergency Child Care Bridge from the calculation and said the amount would be revised upward. The LAO recommended making the COLA treatment uniform across child care and state preschool programs. DSS also proposed replacing the market rate survey with the federally approved alternative methodology survey on a triennial schedule, limiting temporary absences for licensed family child care homes to 20% of care hours in a month, defining excessive unexplained absences as more than 30 days in a 12-month period, and aligning family fee collection so contractors collect the fee without reducing the voucher value. The department said these changes are intended to bring state law into compliance with federal requirements and to better reflect current practice. Finally, the committee discussed the Early Childhood Policy Council, including a reappropriation of previously unused funds and a new reporting requirement under AB 563; members questioned staffing needs and whether existing contractor support could absorb the work, while DSS said the funds are used for stipends, facilitation, translation, and contract oversight and may still be needed as participation patterns change.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:17:28.240> for reasonable uh resources for paying for reasonable uh resources for paying
• <00:17:48.640> for education trust fund will help pay for education trust fund will help pay
• I'm a self-employed businessman so I pay I'm a self-employed businessman so I pay the<00:18:09.039
• The city does not pay them; property owners pay them.
• not pay them we pay for us the city does not pay them we pay them<03:13:38.359> as<03:13:38.720

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee opened a public hearing on HB 402, a bill dealing with whether Education Freedom Account (EFA) payments should be described in state law as not constituting taxable income. The bill sponsor argued that the current statute is misleading because New Hampshire should not imply a federal tax result, and said the bill would remove that language and could also be amended to clarify that families should consult tax advisors. He emphasized that the measure was not intended to impose a state tax on EFAs, but to avoid giving inaccurate advice about possible federal tax liability. Testimony was divided. A retired representative and a tax preparer both opposed the bill, saying EFA payments are already treated consistently with IRS rules and that the bill would create confusion, administrative burden, and possible tax consequences for low- and moderate-income families. They argued the bill is a solution in search of a problem and warned that requiring 1099s could add costs for the scholarship organization and recipients. A tax attorney supported the bill’s repeal of the state language, saying New Hampshire should not put tax advice into statute and that the current wording is inaccurate because federal law, not state law, controls taxability. He cited IRS Section 117 and Publication 970, explaining that only some scholarship-like payments are tax-free and that many EFA-eligible expenses may not qualify for federal exemption. Members asked questions about what would be misleading, whether the bill was trying to tax EFAs, and the cost of issuing 1099s. The sponsor and witnesses repeatedly said the bill was not a state tax on voucher payments, but a clarification about federal tax treatment. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I pay them. >> Correct. And I pay them.
• You're going to pay<02:01:20.000> them. pay them. pay them. >> Correct.
• to pay them whatever you want to pay to pay them whatever you want to pay them<02:02:05.840>
• , pay cycle, and pay frequency.
• So, if I pay cycle, and pay frequency.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first reviewed House Bill 1150, which would require disclosure of complaints to public employees within five business days. Members said the sponsor was still working on an amendment, so the bill was held for another week with the understanding it would be executed next week if no amendment was ready. The chair also outlined the committee’s schedule, including upcoming floor reports and the goal of finishing the remaining committee bills on time. The committee then took up House Bill 1168, concerning employer documentation requirements. Supporters argued the bill would give employers more time to gather payroll records, especially when claims arise years later, and said the current system should be adjusted for fairness to businesses. Opponents, including several members, said payroll records are usually electronic and should be produced quickly so workers waiting on wages are not delayed. The Department of Labor deputy commissioner testified that employers can already request extensions and that further extensions could still be requested under the current process. The committee voted 11-9 to ought to pass HB 1168. Next, House Bill 1250, dealing with notice, documentation, and job reinstatement requirements for leave related to childbirth, postpartum care, and pediatric appointments, was considered. Members said the statute was newly enacted, had been carefully negotiated, and should be allowed to work before being revised. The committee voted 20-0 to recommend inexpedient to legislate, and the bill was placed on the consent calendar. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 1043, which would allow private employers to adopt their own minimum pay policies for report-to-work situations instead of being bound by the current two-hour minimum, so long as the policy is established in advance. The sponsor said the bill would modernize an outdated law and preserve the current default if no policy is adopted. Members raised questions about collective bargaining agreements and whether the bill could weaken existing worker protections, while the sponsor and supporters said it was intended to provide flexibility rather than a mandate. The hearing continued with questions and discussion, but no final vote was taken in the portion provided.