Transcript Highlights:

• <00:15:57.959> by House Bill 211 sponsored by House Bill 211 sponsored by representative<00
• So I just want to thank the sponsor.
• So I just want to thank the sponsor.
• So I just want to thank the sponsor.
• So I just want to thank the sponsor.

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:05 Attendance Roll Call: 00:17 HB 30 (Rep. Blanton): 01:12 HB 27 (Rep. Osborne: 05:22 HB 45 (Rep. Hodgson): 08:29 HB 211 (Rep. C. Lewis): 15:54 HB 441 (Rep. Tipton): 36:38 Adjournment: 41:20, 958, all

Summary: The Senate State and Local Government Committee met and first took up House Bill 30, which addresses pension spiking and retired state troopers returning to work. The sponsor and Kentucky Public Pensions Authority staff said the bill would codify court language clarifying that across-the-board raises from the General Assembly do not count as pension spiking, and the committee substitute would also give retired troopers rehired on a year-to-year basis the same vacation, sick leave, and bereavement benefits as new troopers. The committee adopted the substitute and a title amendment, and HB 30 passed 9-0. The committee then considered House Bill 27, which removes an arbitrary 2023 date from the Planned Communities Act that had created confusion over political signage rules in HOA and planned community phases. The sponsor said the change would preserve HOA authority to regulate sign size, duration, and placement while eliminating inconsistent treatment of neighboring properties. The bill passed 10-0. House Bill 45 followed, proposing to ban foreign funding in Kentucky elections and ballot measures and to require disclosure for express advocacy ads related to ballot measures. Supporters said the bill would put ballot measures on the same footing as candidate and PAC restrictions and prevent foreign nationals from influencing Kentucky elections; one senator raised concerns that the language could unintentionally chill participation by noncitizens, especially in one-on-one discussions, and the sponsor said he would work on that issue. The committee adopted the bill as amended, and it passed 8-1. The final major item was House Bill 211, which would create a narrow exemption allowing cigar bars under defined conditions, including a revenue threshold, age restrictions, ventilation requirements, and local permitting options. The sponsor said the bill would not roll back general smoke-free laws but would allow tightly regulated cigar bars and grandfather existing ones from some requirements. Public health witnesses, including a nurse, a physician, and a thoracic surgeon, opposed the bill, warning it would weaken strong smoke-free protections, harm workers and patrons, and reverse progress against tobacco-related disease. The transcript provided did not include a final vote on HB 211.

Transcript Highlights:

• My question is for the sponsor: how did you get to the 15% of sales?
• Representative Fleming... sponsor um how did you get to the 15% of sponsor um how did you get to the
• We hope to work with the sponsor on this bill after today.
• on after today work with uh the sponsor on after today with<00:46:49.880> this<00:46:50.040><
• <00:53:31.559> to But I would like the sponsor to work with KLC and Koo to try to work out

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:01 Roll Call 00:16 HB 211 Discussion 02:55 HB 211 Vote 16:30 HB 160 Discussion 18:50 HB 160 Vote 52:06 Adjournment 57:35, 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Local Government met for its first meeting of the year, established a quorum, and heard two bills. House Bill 211, sponsored by Representative Chris Lewis, would create a definition for cigar bars and allow indoor cigar smoking in qualifying establishments if they meet criteria such as deriving at least 15% of gross income from cigar-related sales, restricting entry to those 21 and older, prohibiting cigarettes and vaping, and requiring a smoke-free area for deliveries. Lewis and Louisville Metro Council member Anthony Pantini described the bill as a small-business and tourism measure modeled on Tennessee law, while the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network and a St. Elizabeth physician opposed it, arguing it would undermine local smoke-free ordinances and expose patrons and workers to harmful secondhand smoke. Several members raised local-control concerns, and Lewis said he was open to local governments making decisions on less restrictive approaches. The committee adopted a committee substitute and then approved HB 211 on a roll call vote, with multiple members voting yes and several no votes, sending the bill forward as amended. The committee then heard House Bill 160 from Representative Susan Whitten, with Logan Haynes of the Kentucky Manufactured Housing Institute. They said Kentucky faces a housing shortage of roughly 200,000 units and that starter homes are increasingly unaffordable, making manufactured housing an important part of the solution. Whitten said the bill would treat manufactured housing more like site-built housing while still allowing local governments to enforce cosmetic standards such as roof pitch, exterior facade, and foundation material, and she emphasized that HOA, deed, and historical preservation restrictions would remain in place. Haynes argued that modern manufactured homes are federally and state inspected, more energy efficient, faster to build, and more affordable than site-built homes, and he said the bill would not open the door to older-style mobile homes or single-wides except in limited narrow-lot situations. Representatives from the Kentucky League of Cities and the Kentucky Association of Counties expressed concerns about the bill’s current language, saying land-use decisions should remain local and warning that the definition of qualified manufactured home and the bill’s treatment of local standards could have unintended consequences. They said they appreciated Whitten’s willingness to work with them and indicated they hoped to continue negotiating amendments as the bill moved forward. No vote on HB 160 was taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• today and open up the hearing for Election Law and Municipal Affairs on SP 42 and recognize our prime sponsor
• :02:55.599> recognize<00:02:56.159> our<00:02:56.440> Prime<00:02:56.800> sponsor
• sp42 and recognize our Prime sponsor sp42 and recognize our Prime sponsor Senator<00:02:57.800><
• that should if if the prime sponsor that should if if the prime sponsor wants<00:29:23.240> that
• Okay, we'll open the hearing on Senate Bill 46, and in lieu of the prime sponsor.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Co-sponsors.
• Co-sponsors? Representative Lindsey, co-sponsors. Representative Rutledge, co-sponsors.
• Co-sponsors. Representative Lindsey, co-sponsors. Representative Rutledge, co-sponsors.
• Co-sponsors. Representative Lindsay co-sponsors. Mr.
• This is going to hurt people. bill's sponsors. I bill's sponsors.

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The House convened with 58 members present and seven excused, establishing a quorum, and approved the April 15, 2026 journal as corrected. The chamber then moved through announcements recognizing visiting railroad workers, LIUNA Local 720, Colorado West Christian Schools, Religious Freedom Day, and several school and community groups, along with birthday acknowledgments and committee schedule notices. The House also adopted a motion to remove House Bill 1245 from special orders and returned it to the general orders second reading calendar, and set House Bills 1290, 1312, and 1321 as special orders. The House adopted Senate Joint Resolution 18, recognizing Nowruz and expressing support for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the Iranian people, including the Women, Life, Freedom movement. Supporters described Nowruz as a holiday of renewal and resilience and tied the resolution to solidarity with Iranian communities. Representative Zokaie also spoke at length about the personal impact of war on Iranian families and urged a vote. The resolution passed 59-2 with four excused. The chamber then considered several bills in committee report. House Bill 1290, concerning assault and clarifying sentencing, was amended in Judiciary to remove the medical professional provision and passed after testimony emphasizing strangulation as a serious warning sign in domestic violence cases; it then passed the House. House Bill 1312, dealing with peace officer participation, POST Board composition, academy training, and related grants, was amended for clarity and passed the Judiciary report and then the bill. House Bill 1321, modifying the School Security Disbursement Program, had the Education Committee report defeated, but amendments were adopted to broaden eligible service providers and adjust funding language; the bill then passed as amended.

Transcript Highlights:

• As amended, I want to thank the sponsor for the amendment that was added.
• I want to thank the sponsor for the amendment that was added.
• Chair, would the sponsor yield to a question?
• Chair, would the sponsor yield to a question?
• Seeing none, would the sponsor like closing comments? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The Senate met in Committee of the Whole on several calendars, with opening prayer, pledge, attendance, guest introductions, and recognition of doctors of the day and student visitors. The chamber also approved the prior day’s journal and later adopted multiple Committee of the Whole reports assigning bills for further action. Several measures were retained on the calendar, including SB 1366, SB 1503, SB 1787, SB 1803, and SB 1628. On the first calendars, the Senate advanced SB 1232 on military compatibility permit zoning, SB 1493 on disciplinary action appeals for law enforcement officers, SB 1538 on civil traffic violations and warrant-related penalties, and SB 1618 on the military affairs commission, all with amendments. The chamber also advanced SB 1424 on firearm safety instruction in public schools, SB 1456 on state highways and routes, SB 1552 on a tax revision, SB 1554 on chiropractic claims, SB 1572 on civics instruction, SB 1633 on an income tax subtraction for a primary residence, SB 1684 on school liability for serious injury, and SCR 1004 on photo enforcement systems. SCR 1004 drew comments that the amended version would require photo radar to be put to voters in affected cities or towns in the 2028 election cycle. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on SB 1094, which would create civil liability for physicians performing irreversible gender-reassignment surgery on minors. Supporters argued it would protect minors and hold doctors accountable, while opponents said it would discriminate against transgender youth, increase malpractice costs, chill medical care, and reduce provider availability. The Senate also debated SB 1124 on psychiatric evaluations ordered by boards, SB 1496 on Department of Child Safety procedures and representative payees, and SB 1713 on AHCCCS procurement contracting, with concerns raised about access, delays, and agency discretion. SB 1813, dealing with the state hospital governing board and Maricopa County bed limits, prompted debate over litigation risk versus expanding capacity for people with serious mental illness. In later calendars, the Senate advanced SB 1246 on homeowners associations and foreclosure, SB 1271 on municipal authority and alarm-system reporting, SB 1338 on state and local public benefits eligibility, SB 1428 on county board membership, SB 1663 on freedom of speech and the Freedom of Speech Monument Committee, SB 1688 on membership association fees and disclosures, SB 1805 on county recorder/court claim deeds and notaries, SCR 1024 on legislative qualifications and residency requirements, and SB 1808 on homeowners associations and county flags. SB 1338 drew opposition from Sen. Kuby, who said it would remove refugees, DACA recipients, and asylum seekers from eligibility for state and local benefits. SCR 1024 was amended to require one year of party affiliation in addition to district residency, and the sponsor explained it was intended to align party and district requirements. Most measures were adopted from Committee of the Whole with do-pass recommendations, many as amended.

Transcript Highlights:

• He's a co-sponsor, yes, he's a co-sponsor.
• he's a co-sponsor yes he's a co-sponsor he's a co-sponsor yes he's a co-sponsor so<00:06:44.280>
• The prime sponsor is Representative Bernardi.
• <01:32:47.119> there consumer affairs as Prime sponsor there consumer affairs as Prime sponsor
• The prime sponsor is Representative Papichi Mueller; he is not present, but one of the co-sponsors present

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The chair recognizes Senate Sponsor Senator Zaffirini to explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
• Now I recognize Senate Sponsor Senator Menéndez to explain the bill. Thank you, Mr.
• Senate Sponsors are Chairman Perry, but Senator Menéndez will be laying out the bill.
• Senator Flores is the Senate sponsor. We recognize Senator Menéndez to lay it out.
• Senate sponsor is Senator Parker. The chair recognizes Senator Menéndez to explain the bill.

Bills: HB39, HB114, HB1875, HB1894, HB1965, HB2513, HB39, HB114

Keywords: veterans, mental health, Texas Veterans Commission, peer support, suicide prevention, community mental health, grant program, cemetery, General Land Office, burial plot, remembrance, monthly designation, honoring military, Texas legislation, rural services, paid leave, fire protection personnel, military service, public employees, employment benefits

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair lays out House Bill 206 by Representative Craddick and recognizes Senate sponsor Senator Birdwell
• Chair lays out House Bill 2890 by Representative Patterson, sponsored by Senator Parker, relating to
• Is there anyone else wishing to provide public testimony on or against House Bill 2890, sponsored by
• Chair lays out House Bill 1238 by Representative Geren, sponsored by Senator Parker, relating to the
• Members, questions of the bill sponsor.

Bills: HB206, HB1238, HB2890, HB2970

Keywords: pipeline, construction, cash bond, county authority, local government, injection wells, environmental regulation, water quality, site inspection, geoscientist, satellite imagery, interstate compact, liquefied natural gas, energy resources, Gulf Coast, regulatory coordination, HB 2970, Gulf Coast Protection District, Special District Local Laws Code, governor appointment

Summary: The Senate Committee on Natural Resources met with a quorum initially lacking, then took up several bills and heard brief testimony. HB 206, by Rep. Craddick, would prohibit counties from requiring cash bonds as a condition for pipeline construction approvals, while still allowing other forms of financial assurance; the sponsor and a Target Pipeline witness said cash-bond mandates create unnecessary costs and uncertainty, and the bill was left pending. HB 2890, by Rep. Patterson, would create an interstate compact among Gulf Coast states to coordinate and support the liquefied natural gas industry; the sponsor emphasized LNG’s economic importance and said the bill mirrors prior compact language that does not require congressional approval, and it was left pending after no public testimony. HB 1238, by Rep. Geren, would let TCEQ use third-party inspection reports and remote technology when reviewing proposed Class I injection wells; the sponsor and a uranium industry witness said it would streamline regulation and support industry, and it was left pending. HB 2970, by Rep. Paul, the House version of SB 410, would require the Gulf Coast Protection District’s final gate design to accommodate two-way vessel traffic and allow the governor to appoint the district’s presiding officer; the committee substitute was explained and the bill was left pending. With members scattered in other committees, the chair said the committee would recess and later reconvene to vote and complete its work.

Transcript Highlights:

• So strictly speaking, I am not the prime sponsor. I am one of the other sponsors.
• I am uh one of the other sponsor.
• Uh but this was essentially a sponsors.
• The sponsors frame it as a this carnage.
• You hear from our prime sponsor.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• because the industry as uh the sponsor because the industry as uh the sponsor mentioned<00:39:49.079
• Uh, is somebody else did I sponsor this bill, or who did somebody else sponsor this bill?
• else sponsor this bill did somebody else sponsor this bill who's<01:37:35.480> the who's the
• the tape and see what the the sponsor the tape and see what the the sponsor said<01:38:06.840>
• <01:38:26.360> wasn't to the state only so the sponsor wasn't to the state only so the sponsor

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on HB 733-FN, a bill on third-party litigation financing (TPLF). Representative Cole, the prime sponsor, described TPLF as outside investors financing lawsuits in which they have no personal stake, arguing that the practice is largely unregulated, can involve foreign entities, and contributes to litigation abuse, higher insurance costs, and what he called a “tort tax.” He said the bill is modeled on an NCOIL proposal and would require disclosure of TPLF agreements, with specific references to foreign-entity restrictions, consumer-protection guardrails, and reporting requirements. He also noted a few technical fixes to the draft, including adding the word “knowingly” and restoring a section that had been omitted. Committee members questioned how the bill’s foreign-entity language would work, including whether a governor or the Department of Safety would designate countries of concern, and whether the bill would bar foreign parties from using litigation funding. Cole and others clarified that the bill was intended as a reporting measure, not a ban on litigation funding itself, and that the goal was to disclose who is funding lawsuits and to what extent. Representative Sal asked whether the bill would prevent a litigant from getting outside financing; Cole answered no, emphasizing disclosure rather than prohibition. Brandon Grat of the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau testified that the bill’s enforcement provisions were too limited. He said the draft appears to give the Attorney General only a civil-penalty remedy, likely too small to deter violations, and not the broader Consumer Protection Act tools such as injunctions, restitution, or investigation authority. He also raised concerns about whether the Attorney General or Insurance Department would have proper jurisdiction, given that the product may be financial or insurance-related. Insurance Commissioner DJ Benton Court said the department sees possible benefits from transparency because disclosure of litigation funding could help insurers assess risk, improve underwriting, and potentially ease hard-market pressures, especially for nonprofits and child care providers. He also said the bill’s language likely needs further work to clarify agency authority and suggested involving the Attorney General, Insurance Department, and banking regulators. Opposition testimony came from the New Hampshire Trial Lawyers Association. Marissa Chase and Samantha Hering argued the bill is one-sided because it requires disclosure only on the plaintiff side and not from defendants or insurers. They said New Hampshire already has court rules and discovery procedures that cover relevant disclosures, making the bill unnecessary, and questioned whether the existence of a funding contract is even relevant in litigation. The hearing ended with the committee continuing to discuss possible revisions and enforcement options, but no vote or final action was taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• We sponsored this for over 1,500, and my representative is Buffy Wicks.
• Thank you very much, Assemblyman, for being a co-sponsor of this bill.
• I spent a ton of time with one of the sponsors over the weekend.
• So, seeing this issue from multiple angles, we are proud to be a sponsor of AB 1380.
• AB 1244 would allow sponsors of transportation...

Summary: The committee hearing centered first on AB 1243, the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act of 2025, which would direct CalEPA to identify major fossil fuel companies, study California’s climate damages, and assess fees on the largest polluters to fund resilience, recovery, and related projects. The author and supporters argued the bill would make polluters help pay for climate harms, protect taxpayers, create jobs in construction and clean energy, and dedicate at least 40% of funds to disadvantaged communities. Support testimony came from environmental justice groups, labor, youth advocates, health organizations, and many individual witnesses, while opponents from the building trades, chambers of commerce, petroleum, and business groups warned it would raise fuel and consumer costs, threaten refinery jobs, and create legal and economic uncertainty. Committee members debated the bill’s impact on affordability, jobs, refinery closures, and whether cap-and-trade already addresses climate funding needs. The committee ultimately voted to give AB 1243 a due pass recommendation to the Judiciary Committee, with the roll left open. After AB 1243, the committee moved to another bill on wildfire mitigation and related resilience work. The author said the measure addresses a long-running wildfire problem and accepted committee amendments, describing the bill as a response to increasingly severe wildfire seasons and the need to help communities stay safe and rebuild after disasters. The transcript cuts off as that presentation begins, so no final action on the second bill is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are the proud sponsor of the bill and in full support.
• Shane Guzman on behalf of Teamsters California, proud co-sponsor of this bill. Good afternoon.
• And the sponsors claim that this information will advance the fight against anti-Semitism.
• And the sponsors claim that this information will advance the fight against anti-Semitism.
• The sponsors also claim... You can wrap up, please. Thank you. Okay. I will clap up.

Summary: The committee began as a subcommittee due to the lack of a quorum and heard several privacy- and technology-related measures. The first item was H.R. 117, a resolution urging Congress to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The author and supporters argued the law is outdated and shields platforms from accountability for harms such as harassment, exploitation, scams, and other online abuse. Witnesses, including a survivor parent and a gender justice advocate, described harms to children, women, and LGBTQ people and urged a two-year sunset to force federal reform. Some members supported the resolution as a call for federal action, while one member said he could not support it because the resolution was too general and lacked specificity about the reforms being sought. No vote was taken because the committee lacked a quorum. The committee then heard SB 898, which would require manufacturers of connected consumer products to disclose how long they will support the software and to notify consumers when products approach end of life. The author said consumers deserve transparency about security updates and continued functionality, and supporters from Consumer Reports and PIRG emphasized cybersecurity risks, consumer confusion, and electronic waste from unsupported devices. Opponents, including business and industry groups, raised concerns about enforcement through the unfair competition law, notice burdens, labeling issues, and compliance challenges, especially for products with long support windows or third-party dependencies. One member expressed support, noting the cybersecurity risks of end-of-life devices, but again no vote was taken because there was no quorum. The committee also heard SB 435, which would narrow the CCPA definition of publicly available information to limit how businesses classify data as public. The author and supporters said the bill would close a loophole that allows data brokers and others to monetize personal information without meaningful consent and could help prevent surveillance and misuse of data, including by government agencies. Opponents argued the bill would upset the balance between privacy and the free flow of information, create compliance uncertainty, and retroactively reclassify information that businesses reasonably believed was public. Some members said they supported the goal of stronger privacy protections, while others said the bill was too broad. The committee again could not vote due to the lack of a quorum. Later, the committee heard SB 923, which would expand Californians’ right to delete personal information to cover data obtained from third parties and require online businesses to offer a web form or similar method for deletion requests. Supporters, including the California Privacy Protection Agency and consumer advocates, said the bill would make deletion rights meaningful and better address data broker practices. Opponents sought an opt-out-of-processing alternative and raised operational and legal concerns, but supporters said deletion is not the same as retention or processing limits. Members largely spoke in favor of the bill’s privacy goals, but no action was taken. The committee also heard SB 947, the “No Robo Bosses Act,” which would require human review for certain automated employment decisions and limit predictive analysis in workplace discipline and termination. Labor groups supported the bill as a safeguard against biased or erroneous AI-driven decisions, while business, public employer, and local government groups opposed it as overbroad and burdensome. Members voiced support for human oversight in employment decisions, but the item was not voted on because the committee still lacked a quorum. Finally, the committee began hearing SB 1114, the SOGI Data Privacy Act, which would restrict disclosure of sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex data to federal agencies absent a court order or legal requirement; the author and witness framed it as a response to federal efforts to obtain sensitive LGBTQ-related data.

Transcript Highlights:

• Seeing none, as the bill sponsor, I'll just speak briefly on this bill.
• Members, are there any questions for me as the bill sponsor? Seeing none, Mr.
• Seeing none, I'll ask the bill sponsor or the amendment sponsor.
• If there's no additional questions for the bill sponsor, Mr.
• We would like to thank the sponsor for sponsoring this and the chairman for hearing this bill.

Bills: HB2143, HB2273, HB2290, HB2373, HB2784, HB2794, HB4037

Keywords: public safety, retirement system, investments, trust fund, board of trustees, financial report, income tax rebate, Pinal County, taxpayer eligibility, state revenue, financial assistance, transaction privilege tax, business location, tangible personal property, shared vehicle, sourcing, income tax, veterans, donations, tax refunds

Summary: The House Ways and Means Committee first set aside House Bill 2794 at the sponsor’s request and then took up House Bill 2290, which would clarify Arizona transaction privilege tax sourcing rules for tangible personal property by specifying that an order is received at a seller’s business location and that server location does not control sourcing. The sponsor said the bill codifies existing, historic treatment and would provide certainty for taxpayers, while the League of Arizona Cities and Towns opposed it, arguing it would be a major departure from current practice, could shift revenue away from rural communities, and could create multiple tax rates for a single transaction. The Department of Revenue said it was neutral, acknowledged ongoing ambiguity and administrative complexity, and explained that a 2023 draft ruling had been based on a legal analysis but was never finalized. Several business and association witnesses supported the bill as necessary to prevent inconsistent audits and to preserve origin-based sourcing for in-state sellers. After extended debate, the committee passed HB 2290 on a 5-3 vote, with one member absent. The committee then heard House Bill 2373, which would add a space on the individual income tax return for taxpayers to voluntarily direct part of a refund to the Veterans Donations Fund or a veterans service organization fund. The sponsor and a representative of veterans advocacy groups described it as a simple, voluntary way to support veterans organizations and local projects. No opposition was raised, and the bill was approved unanimously by the members present, 8-0, with one absent. Finally, the committee considered House Bill 2143, a technical change to Public Safety Personnel Retirement System law that would limit the 5% ownership cap to publicly traded corporations. PSPRS representatives said the change would reduce compliance costs and avoid unnecessary workarounds while maintaining existing investment safeguards and diversification rules. Members discussed that ASRS does not have the same cap and that PSPRS already has broader limits on concentration risk. The bill was presented as an administrative cleanup measure, and discussion focused on clarifying that it would not increase investment risk.

Transcript Highlights:

• I just want to thank the author for her work on the bill and the sponsors for your testimony today.
• Thank you to the insurance industry stakeholders and to the Department of Insurance, who are co-sponsors
• Hello, Carmen Bulver, Executive Director of Consumer Watchdog, also proud co-sponsor, and speaking also
• The author and sponsors have said they’re committed to ongoing conversations to address major concerns
• The author and sponsor, We have an opposed and less amended position.

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee heard several bills, with most of the discussion focused on insurance transparency, claims handling, privacy, and regulatory enforcement. SB 877 and SB 878 by Senator Pérez addressed post-disaster claims practices: SB 877 would require insurers to disclose original and revised loss estimates and related claim materials to policyholders, while SB 878 would add automatic interest penalties for delayed claim decisions or payments and require written identification of disputed items. Fire survivors, consumer groups, AARP, the Department of Insurance, and other advocates supported both bills, while insurer groups moved to neutral after amendments. Both bills were voted out on roll call and reported to the Committee on Appropriations. The committee also considered SB 1054 by Senator Cabaldon, which would expand data sharing and reporting to improve workforce program evaluation and help counties verify work requirements for Medi-Cal and CalFresh using employer-reported hours worked. County officials, workforce advocates, and the Department of Insurance supported the measure, and no opposition was heard. The bill passed on a due-pass-as-amended motion to the Committee on Labor and Employment. SB 1209 by Senator Allen, presented with Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, would give the commissioner stronger enforcement tools to require insurers to carry out corrective actions identified in market conduct examinations, including fines and hearings for noncompliance. The commissioner and author said the bill would close an enforcement gap and improve accountability; there was no opposition testimony, but the bill was left on call after the roll. The committee also heard SB 354 on insurance privacy, presented by Senator Padilla on behalf of Pro Tem Limón, which would modernize insurance privacy rules by expanding consumer rights over personal data, limiting sale and use of sensitive information, and increasing disclosure requirements. Supporters said the bill updates outdated 1980s-era rules, while insurers, agents, and business groups raised concerns about scope, compliance burdens, and small-business impacts. Members indicated the bill was still being negotiated and would return in a revised form in the Privacy Committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• Hanna with the California Nurses Association, sponsored this bill. Thank you.
• We're co-sponsor of AB 1607.
• And then I have, yes, so for the sponsors of the bill...
• We talk to our sponsors and coalition that we've brought together.
• We are a proud sponsor of AB 2531.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I rise for a question of the amendment sponsor. Senator Shope, do you yield for a question?
• I rise for a question of the amendment sponsor. Senator Chope, do you yield for a question? Sure.
• Chair, would the sponsor yield for a question on the amendment? Senator Kavanaugh, do you yield?
• The sponsor has been told that the conduct can be prosecuted in Arizona.
• There is no issue that it's addressing beyond the short-sightedness of the sponsor.

Summary: The Senate met in floor session, began with prayer and the Pledge, approved the journal, received communications, and handled a return of Senate Bill 1456 from the House for reconsideration. Members then moved through several Committee of the Whole calendars, considering and amending bills on court fees, information technology, environmental quality, agricultural property inspections, property tax notices, veterans services, zoning and electric generation siting, fuel and gas resilience, and disturbing religious services. Several amendments were adopted, including changes to HB 2265 on criminal court fees, HB 2311 on conversational AI disclosures and privacy limits, HB 2986 on environmental quality/fuel resilience, HB 2104 and HB 2105 on agricultural property inspection rules, HB 2406 on veterans services, HB 2494 on electric generation siting and environmental compatibility, HB 2696 on fuel and gas prices, and HB 4117 on interference with religious services. Most of these bills were reported out of committee with do pass recommendations, though members raised concerns on HB 2311 and HB 4117 about privacy, free speech, and prosecutorial discretion. The chamber then took up a long series of third readings and final votes. Bills passed included HB 2015 on single-audit compliance, HB 2041 on child neglect and poverty factors, HB 2048 on AHCCCS prescription drug coverage, HB 2417 on excessive speed, HB 2611 on child welfare, HB 2793 on annexation, HB 2950 on special districts, HB 2995 on family law, HB 4018 on county officers, HB 2404 on mental health services, HB 2279 on limitations of actions, HB 2502 on the state retirement system, HB 2733 and HB 2953 on pharmacy regulation, HB 2979 on credit unions, HB 4042 on parent-child relationship determinations, HB 4010 on health professional regulatory boards, HB 4043 on public schools, HB 4049 on the Attorney General, HB 2265 on court fees, HB 2311 on information technology, and HB 2986 on environmental quality. HB 2601 on state highways and routes failed. Several members explained votes on bills involving fiscal impacts, child welfare, road safety, annexation, and criminal justice concerns. The Senate also adopted a group concurrence motion on several conference committee reports, including HB 2003, HB 2010, HB 2133, and HB 2874, and then voted on those measures. HB 2003 on driver’s license instruction permits, HB 2010 on advertising, HB 2133 on disclosure of sexual material and synthetic depictions, and HB 2874 on campaign committees and termination statements were all advanced after conference committee action, with debate on HB 2133 focusing on First Amendment and content-moderation concerns. The session ended with introduction of a large package of transportation-related appropriations bills and a motion to suspend certain committee notice rules for Appropriations to hear legislation and strike-everything amendments on short notice.

Transcript Highlights:

• this bill with him to have to co-sponsor this bill with him to have a<00:14:13.360> full-blown
• And again, I'm happy to co-sponsor<00:15:55.199> the<00:15:55.360> bill<00:15:55.440>
• > with<00:15:55.600> you<00:15:55.759> next<00:15:56.000> year co-sponsor the
• It gives us solid, actual relief right now, and we can address, like I said, I'll co-sponsor the bill
• Senator Lang, as a co-sponsor. Thank you.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee of conference on HB 155 continued discussion of a compromise over business tax relief, small-business filing thresholds, and nursing home funding. Representative Sweeney proposed raising the filing threshold to $400,000 and creating a trigger for future Business Enterprise Tax reductions if business tax revenues produce a $200 million biennial surplus, with the Department of Revenue Administration commissioner able to exclude one-time or non-sustainable funds. Supporters said the proposal would provide a clear policy direction, immediate relief to about 4,500 small and micro businesses, and a future path back to the BET’s original 0.25% rate. Opponents, led by the Senate side, argued the trigger language was premature, better handled in a budget year with more revenue data, and inappropriate to decide in a short conference committee meeting. The Senate also emphasized that the tax policy should not be locked in without a fuller public process, while House members argued the trigger would not take effect until a future biennium and was therefore a prudent way to signal New Hampshire’s direction on taxes. A separate point of discussion involved nursing homes: the House said its report would include $2.5 million for nursing homes with non-lapsing language, and senators stressed the importance of that funding for the health care system and county property taxpayers. One senator warned that triggers could encourage revenue underestimation and noted bond rating concerns about a structural deficit. Several motions were made to accept the Senate position with the $400,000 threshold and related amendments, but the first motion failed on a party-line style split, with the Senate voting yes and the House voting no. A second House motion to accede to the Senate position while also including the nursing home funding, the threshold increase, and the future trigger language was also rejected by the Senate. The meeting ended with the report filed without agreement on the trigger language, and the transcript then notes a separate reconvened committee of conference on HB 751 being postponed until 12:30 the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• Loyaltery, on behalf of Economic Security California Action, proud co-sponsor, strong support.
• Loyaltery on behalf of Economic Security, California Action, proud co-sponsor, strong support.
• As co-sponsor of the bill, thank you.
• We are proud co-sponsors. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
• Kat Brackman with the California School Employees Association, proud co-sponsors. Thank you.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation heard several bills dealing with tax policy, local revenue authority, consumer protections, and incentives for development. AB 1726 would create catastrophe savings accounts for homeowners to save pre-tax dollars for disaster mitigation and recovery costs; it drew support from the Department of Insurance and the California Bankers Association, while the California Teachers Association opposed it because of the General Fund and Prop. 98 impact. The bill was referred to suspense. AB 1768 would authorize Los Angeles and Contra Costa counties to ask voters to approve local transaction and use taxes to offset projected federal funding cuts affecting health care and safety-net services; it received broad support from health providers and county representatives, opposition from one member and a resident, and passed the committee 5-2 to the Assembly Local Government Committee. The committee also considered AB 1790, which would repeal the Waters Edge corporate tax election and require worldwide combined reporting for multinational corporations. The author and supporters argued it would close a loophole, raise several billion dollars annually, and help fund schools, Medi-Cal, and other programs; opponents warned of double taxation, compliance burdens, retaliation from foreign governments, and job losses. After extensive testimony and member debate, the bill was referred to suspense. AB 2020 would provide a full property tax exemption for the primary residence of 100% disabled veterans and surviving spouses, and AB 2069 would create a targeted sales and use tax exemption to spur development projects at fairgrounds; both measures had support from sponsors and related organizations, no opposition, and were referred to suspense. Finally, AB 2705 would regulate third-party “asset finders” who help claim excess proceeds from tax sales by requiring written agreements, disclosure that claims can be filed free with the county, and a cap on fees at 10%. County officials and local government groups supported the bill as a consumer protection measure, while recovery companies and related firms opposed it, arguing the work is complex and the cap would reduce access to services. The committee moved AB 2705 to the Assembly floor on a 4-0 vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:02:57.280> by which is sponsored by which is sponsored by Senate<00:02:58.840> President
• And you're the primary co-sponsor, so thank you very much for that.
• And you're the primary co-sponsor, so thank you very much for that.
• >> And thank you for co-sponsoring, Representative. All right.
• sponsor.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:01 Roll Call 00:00:21 SB 141 Discussion 00:03:21 SB 141 Vote 00:10:57 HB 755 Discussion 00:13:08 HB 755 Vote 00:17:55 SB 20 Discussion 00:19:36 SB 20 Vote 00:21:53 SB 40 Discussion 00:23:31 SB 40 Vote 00:26:25 HB 851 Discussion 00:28:53 HB 851 Vote 00:31:53 Adjournment 00:33:26, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Are there questions of the sponsor? Seeing none, there are no amendments.
• First, I would like to thank every co-sponsor of this bill, and I'd also like to thank our bill sponsor
• I'm encouraging us all to co-sponsor it.
• And I will be a co-sponsor as well. So just thank you.
• Other questions of the sponsor? Seeing none, there are no amendments.

Summary: The committee first took up PCS for CS for HB 1279, a higher education bill focused on Florida’s preeminent universities. The sponsor said the measure would increase access for Florida students, strengthen accountability and transparency, update accreditation references, adjust performance metrics, and address issues such as GPA weighting, engineering credit-hour differences, and certain fee-waiver and dental-program provisions. Members raised questions about the 95% Florida-resident enrollment target, possible funding impacts, Pell Grant metrics, and whether the bill would affect community college pathways; the sponsor said the bill was aimed at first-time-in-college students and that the 95% standard would be measured on a three-year rolling average. After an amendment removing an adjustment to the four-year graduation metric was adopted, the bill was reported favorably by a 17-2 vote. The committee then heard PCS for CS for HB 1059, which would strengthen speech and debate education by designating the Florida Debate Initiative as the statewide organization, supporting coach and judge training, statewide data collection, tournaments, and a Florida Speech and Debate Week. The sponsor and several students and advocates testified that speech and debate builds confidence, civics knowledge, leadership, and opportunities for English learners and other students, with multiple speakers describing how the program changed their lives. Members from both parties spoke strongly in support, and the bill was reported favorably without opposition. Finally, the committee considered PCS for HB 725 on political activity at public institutions of higher education. The sponsor said the bill would standardize campus policies, require notice to students and employees about free-expression and political-campaign rules, and align state practice with federal guidelines while preserving free speech and nonpartisan voter engagement. An opponent argued the bill could create barriers to civic engagement and student organizing, while supporters said it would clarify existing rules and prevent institutions from favoring one viewpoint over another. The sponsor closed by emphasizing that the bill was about information and neutrality rather than restricting speech.