Transcript Highlights:

• </c> on um discussing regulations on um discussing regulations regarding<00:01:29.759><c> um</c><00:01
• </c><00:02:10.800><c> specifically</c> don't have regulation specifically don't have regulation specifically
• </c> headed down the right path to regulate headed down the right path to regulate these<00:08:06.360
• </c> Kian we need to have some regulations Kian we need to have some regulations provided<00:10:05.800
• She then asked, "Is it a statute or a regulation?" and was told, "It's a regulation."

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and took up Senate Bill 202, adopting a committee substitute before hearing testimony. Senator Julie Rocky Adams explained that the substitute would require the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to promulgate regulations by January 1, 2026 for intoxicating hemp-derived beverages, direct the University of Kentucky to study manufacturing, testing, distribution, sales, and consumer effects of those beverages, and impose a moratorium on their sale until July 1, 2026. Supporters, including Rep. Matt Cook, said the measure was intended as a consumer-protection step rather than a ban, citing concerns about youth access, inconsistent labeling, and the need for a clearer regulatory framework. Members asked about the legal status of the products, whether the bill could unintentionally sweep in non-intoxicating hemp beverages, and whether there was evidence of harm. Senators were told the products are legal under the federal farm bill loophole, but that testing has shown THC levels on sampled cans did not match labels and that current regulations do not specifically address intoxicating hemp-derived beverages. Senator Higdon said CHFS had already been authorized to regulate hemp products and was moving forward with regulations and enforcement, while Senator Meredith questioned whether a moratorium would unfairly punish businesses that had already invested in the market and suggested setting a THC standard instead. Public testimony then shifted to industry opposition. Jim Higdon of Cornbread Hemp said his company had invested heavily in a beverage line and argued the moratorium would function like a ban and harm small businesses. Dee Taylor of 502 Hemp and the Kentucky Hemp Association also opposed the moratorium, saying existing rules already require age limits, behind-the-counter sales, and licensed retailers, and arguing that a cap on milligrams would be preferable to a shutdown. He said retailers were seeing approved and unapproved products in the market and urged work with the Cabinet and ABC rather than a moratorium.

Transcript Highlights:

• This issue should also be regulated in the same fashion as alcohol.
• Our current advertising regulation is one of many regulations that offer Massachusetts a false sense
• This highlights the importance of considering regulations for cannabis advertising, similar to regulations
• You can't regulate the content of the speech.
• That's not taxed, and that's not regulated.

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 are not inacted our regulations that are not inacted our emergency<00:03:00.560><c> regulations
• so these are emergency regulations so these are ordinary<00:03:02.560><c> regulations</c><00:03:03.560
• It's one in a thousand regulations that this applies to, so we do not need any more regulations in front
• </c><00:10:54.920><c> that</c> 65 which um finds all regulations that 65 which um finds all regulations
• </c><00:10:59.480><c> are</c> null and void uh all regulations are null and void uh all regulations are

Summary: The Licensing and Occupations committee met for its first meeting under Chair Rocky Adams, who opened by announcing a more flexible approach to committee procedure, including no egg timer, less emphasis on interim vetting, and a collaborative process with the House chair on amendments. The committee then took up its only agenda item, Senate Bill 23, sponsored by Senator Steve West, which would allow the Administrative Regulations Committee to conduct preliminary review of non-enacted regulations and require cabinet representatives to appear, provide information, and have authority to respond to deficiencies. West said the bill is intended to increase transparency earlier in the regulatory process and address past problems with cabinet participation. Members generally supported the bill and emphasized the importance of transparency and oversight in the regulatory process. Several questions focused on a possible notice requirement for committee review; West said the administration had requested five days’ notice, and he was open to that idea so long as no loopholes were created, including whether the same notice should apply to deferral requests. He also explained that the bill does not create strong enforcement teeth beyond existing committee powers to find a regulation deficient or request deferral, and that any stronger response would still come through separate legislation. Before the vote, members explained their support while noting concerns about notice and fairness. Senator Berg warned against surprise agenda changes and wanted a level playing field, while Senator Douglas said the bill would help constituents better understand regulations. The committee then voted to pass Senate Bill 23 with favorable expression and sent it to the Senate floor. The meeting adjourned afterward.

Transcript Highlights:

• Financial institutions are required to comply with regulations and guidance issued by all of these regulators
• So here they're already regulated... ...pretty heavily.
• regulation, maybe, unless you want it to be a regulation.
• But your basic objection here is that I'm a regulator.
• I'm a regulator. I have regulations, and they were prescribed by law.

Committee: House Financial Institutions

Summary: The committee first met in executive session on House Bill 2116, which drew comments about children’s education and an amendment offered by Representative Hinman. Hinman explained the amendment would phase out the Missouri tax subtraction for contributions to non-Missouri 529 plans for new users beginning January 1, 2027, while allowing existing users to continue. The committee adopted the amendment, rolled it into a substitute, and then voted the House Committee substitute do pass by a vote of 11 yeas, 3 nays, and 1 present. Hinman also noted concerns from the investment community about the absence of an advisor-sold 529 option and urged the department to work toward restoring it. In public hearing, Representative Lane Roberts presented House Bill 1870, a garnishment and exemption update that would modernize long-outdated exemption amounts, tie some amounts to CPI adjustments, increase the homestead exemption, and create new procedures for garnishment of financial institution account funds. The Missouri Bankers Association supported the bill, saying it was the product of extensive work with stakeholders and would improve efficiency and reduce legal risk for banks, while also protecting debtors’ rights. Questions focused on joint accounts, business accounts, and notice to account holders; a private attorney speaking in opposition argued the bill could improperly shift burdens onto non-debtor account holders and raised concerns about tenancy by the entirety, corporate accounts, and equitable garnishment. Representative Castile then presented House Bill 2586, which would lower the minimum credit union membership share from $25 to $1 and allow credit union board and committee meetings and voting by electronic means. The Missouri Credit Union Association supported the bill, saying it would improve access for members who need the $25 and help boards meet despite weather or distance, while also aligning state law more closely with federal practice. Finally, Representative Oehlerking presented House Bill 3107, the “Safe Harbor” bill, which would shield financial institutions from civil liability under state law when they act in good faith reliance on written guidance from regulators, while excluding fraud, intentional misconduct, willful wrongdoing, and gross negligence. Credit union and banking representatives supported the measure as a defense against costly litigation based on compliance with required forms and guidance, while an opposing attorney argued the bill relied on nonpublic agency guidance, raised separation-of-powers concerns, and could leave consumers without recourse; witnesses also discussed possible examples such as overdraft fee litigation and the need for any guidance to be public and reviewable.

Transcript Highlights:

• DCC regulations prohibit labeling that is attractive to children, but the regulations do not prohibit
• Current regulations broadly pertain to edibles, and those regulations limit products in general to 100
• Current regulations broadly pertain to edibles, and those regulations limit products in general to 100
• They increased after 2018, when the regulated market launched.
• You've had the ability for regulators to take action.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit Committee heard an audit on the Department of Cannabis Control’s oversight of cannabis packaging and labeling, focused on products that may be attractive to children. The auditor said the department’s rules are often vague or subjective, leading to inconsistent enforcement, and that the state relies heavily on complaints rather than pre-market review. The audit found disagreements with DCC’s conclusions in 13 of 80 packaging reviews, and noted weaknesses in tracking repeat violators and escalating penalties. The auditor recommended clearer statutory standards, better internal review tools, stronger repeat-offender policies, and consideration of options such as plain packaging or pre-approval systems. Committee members and the audit requester emphasized rising cannabis poison-control calls involving children under five and cited examples of legal products with cartoon imagery, bright colors, candy-like names, and beverage packaging that resembled ordinary drinks. DCC representatives said they had already begun reforms, including a centralized review team, improved databases, enhanced technology tools, and new procedures to track compliance history and apply progressive discipline. They also stressed that illicit cannabis and intoxicating hemp remain major sources of youth exposure and argued that some issues require both regulatory refinement and more legislative clarity. Public health witnesses argued that California has not done enough to protect children and urged plain packaging, limits on flavors and child-appealing design, and a pre-market review process. Industry representatives agreed that cannabis should not be marketed to children but said the current rules are too subjective and inconsistent, and asked for objective, bright-line standards rather than broader bans. Several members said the examples shown were plainly child-appealing and called for stronger statutory guardrails, while also acknowledging the need to keep pressure on the illicit market. No formal vote or action was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• . regulation. regulation.
• </c> Law on these regulations. Law on these regulations.
• </c> department of law regulation. department of law regulation.
• </c> regulation. Thank you. regulation. Thank you.
• </c> regulation. Thank you. regulation. Thank you.

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes and then took up Department for Medicaid Services regulations 907 KAR 23:010 and related rules. DMS explained that one regulation would establish a beneficiary advisory council and another would remove language barring coverage of GLP-1 drugs for obesity-related use. The department said coverage would still be limited by prior authorization and clinical criteria, with use tied to underlying chronic conditions such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease, and that the pharmacy and therapeutics committee would help set the detailed standards. Members discussed the potential health benefits, but several raised concerns about cost, timing, and whether the legislature and the Medicaid Oversight and Advisory Board should review the policy first. DMS said the drugs are already on the formulary, that current Medicaid users with diabetes are already covered, and that the fiscal impact was estimated using current utilization, rebates, and expected savings; the department also said it would only cover the drugs if subject to rebates. The committee then voted 5-1 to find 907 KAR 23:010 deficient. The committee next considered several emergency regulations from the Public Protection Cabinet’s Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control implementing SB 100. The rules covered tobacco, nicotine, and vapor product licensing, including the application form, denial standards, and transitional licensing. ABC counsel said the department had received about 5,500 applications and issued nearly 5,000 licenses, with additional provisional licenses issued to avoid interruption in sales after the law’s effective date. He said some applications remained pending because inspections and photographs revealed possible unauthorized nicotine vapor products, and the department was seeking documentation before approval. A staff amendment was adopted without objection before the ABC presentation continued.

Transcript Highlights:

• It starts with action on developing or amending a regulation.
• We want you to regulate, you know, the design of something.
• One of the regulations that would be immediately impacted is a transport refrigeration unit regulation
• The other regulation that we have where we have some fees is the commercial harborcraft regulation.
• SB 905 calls for us to develop regulations.

Summary: The committee hearing focused heavily on CARB’s broad trailer bill request for regulatory fee authority. Finance and CARB argued the proposal would let CARB develop fees to recover reasonable costs for implementing and enforcing regulations, while the LAO recommended rejection because the authority was too broad, could apply to an entire division of code, and would delegate core legislative taxing/fee-setting power without enough guardrails. Members from both parties raised concerns about the breadth of the authority, accountability, affordability impacts, and whether the Legislature would be put in an up-or-down position after CARB had already developed regulations. CARB responded that fees would still go through a budget change proposal and legislative approval before collection, and cited existing examples such as transport refrigeration units and commercial harborcraft fees. The committee then reviewed CARB’s request for permanent resources to implement SB 905 on carbon capture, utilization, storage, and carbon dioxide removal. CARB said the Legislature had previously authorized limited-term positions and funding, but it had struggled to recruit and retain staff with specialized regulatory and technical expertise, and that the work had included pre-rulemaking contracts, technology review, and permit-related preparation. Members questioned the pace of work, the use of limited-term positions, and whether additional permitting authority would be needed. CARB said it hoped to begin rulemaking later in the year if permanent resources were approved. Members also discussed the cap-and-trade spending plan, noting lower-than-expected auction revenues but higher interest earnings, and the need to monitor the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and possible May Revision changes. The committee then heard overviews of the zero-emission vehicle package, the Community Air Protection Program, demand-side grid support, and e-bike incentives. CARB described ongoing investments in community-based transportation equity, drayage trucks, harbor craft, and other clean technology demonstrations, while members pressed on affordability, program duplication, and whether enough funding was being directed to incentive programs. No formal votes were taken during the portion provided, and the chair repeatedly indicated that the hearing was intended to surface concerns for later budget negotiations.

Transcript Highlights:

• They have not been able to regulate it.
• Kratom needs to be regulated, not banned.
• The other: regulation, clear rules, safety checks, guidelines, The other: regulation, clear rules, safety
• or lack of regulation of this product.
• that... ...regulations on it.

Committee: House Health and Welfare

Transcript Highlights:

• "It's almost like a death by regulation.
• </c> regulating AI's use by health insurers. regulating AI's use by health insurers.
• </c> to regulate and less safe for consumers. to regulate and less safe for consumers.
• It's almost like a death by regulation.
• It's almost like a death by regulation.

Transcript Highlights:

• DCC's regulations prohibit a picture of the actual product if it's an edible, DCC's regulations prohibit
• DCC regulations prohibit labeling that is attractive to children, but the regulations do not prohibit
• Current regulations broadly pertain to edibles, and those regulations limit products in general to 100
• You've had the ability for regulators to take action.
• You've had the ability for regulators to take action.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit Committee heard an audit on the Department of Cannabis Control’s oversight of cannabis packaging and labeling, focused on whether products attractive to children are being kept out of the legal market. The auditor said the department’s rules are often vague or subjective, leading to inconsistent enforcement, and that the state relies heavily on licensees to self-police because there is no upfront review before products reach the market. The audit cited examples involving cartoon-like images, bright colors, flavor references, candy-like imagery, strain names, and beverage packaging, and recommended clearer statutory standards, possible pre-approval of packaging, better enforcement tools, and stronger tracking of repeat violators. Assemblymembers and senators largely agreed that child safety is the priority, but differed on the best policy response. Some members argued for clearer legislative limits and even plain packaging, saying products like root beer, cherry pie, and cereal-like designs are plainly appealing to children. Department officials said they had already begun reforms, including a centralized label-review team, a rubric, improved databases, and more attention to repeat violations, while also emphasizing that the illicit and intoxicating hemp markets are major sources of youth exposure and that resource constraints limit inspections. They said they are open to working with the Legislature on more specific standards and additional funding. Public witnesses split between public health and industry perspectives. A pediatrician and public health advocate urged stronger restrictions, including plain packaging, limits on flavors and potency, and a pre-market review system, arguing that vague rules have failed children. Industry representatives said they support youth protections but want bright-line, objective standards so compliant businesses can know what is allowed; they argued that most youth-targeted packaging is in the illicit market and that the legal market needs clearer rules rather than broader bans. No formal vote or committee action was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• DCC's regulations prohibit a picture of the actual product if it's an edible DCC's regulations prohibit
• DCC regulations prohibit labeling that is attractive to children, but the regulations do not prohibit
• Current regulations broadly pertain to edibles, and those regulations limit products in general to 100
• Regulators, legislators, and the licensed industry share that commitment.
• You've had the ability for regulators to take action.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit Committee heard an audit on the Department of Cannabis Control’s oversight of cannabis packaging and labeling, focused on whether products are attractive to children. The auditor said the department’s rules are often vague, enforcement is inconsistent, and licensees are left to interpret standards without prior review. In a review of 80 packaging cases, the audit team disagreed with the department’s conclusions in 13 instances, and the report highlighted examples involving cartoon imagery, colorful fonts, candy-like references, flavor names, and cannabis beverages that resembled ordinary drinks. The auditor recommended clearer statutory definitions, possible consideration of plain packaging or pre-approval models like Oregon’s, better internal guidance, and stronger tracking and escalation for repeat violators. Committee members and Assembly Member Irwin emphasized the rise in poison control calls involving children under five since legalization and argued that legal-market packaging can contribute to accidental ingestion, especially when products resemble candy or drinks. Several members pressed the department on why items such as root beer, strawberry lemonade, and cherry pie strain names should be allowed if they may appeal to children. The Department of Cannabis Control responded that it has already centralized label review, added staff and technology tools, improved compliance-history tracking, and is using progressive discipline tools such as notices to comply, citations, embargoes, abatements, and license actions. The department also argued that the illicit cannabis and intoxicating hemp markets are major drivers of youth exposure and that enforcement resources must be balanced across those markets. Public health witness Dr. Lynn Silver urged stronger restrictions, including plain packaging, bans on added flavors and child-appealing imagery, lower THC limits for edibles and beverages, and a dedicated pre-market review process. Industry representatives from the California Cannabis Industry Association and the California Cannabis Operators Association agreed that youth protections are essential, but argued that clearer, objective standards are needed so compliant businesses can know the rules and enforcement can be consistent. They said most licensed products are already compliant, that the most blatant youth-targeted packaging is concentrated in the illicit market, and that the Legislature should refine definitions and guidance rather than rely on subjective case-by-case judgments. No formal vote or bill action was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, passing regulations or framework for regulations simply applies to regulations.
• , regulation, regulation, &gt;&gt; right?
• . regulations. regulations.
• </c> that we're trying to regulate. that we're trying to regulate.
• . regulations. regulations.

Transcript Highlights:

• DCC's regulations prohibit a picture of the actual product if it's an edible, DCC's regulations prohibit
• DCC regulations prohibit labeling that is attractive to children, but the regulations do not prohibit
• Current regulations broadly pertain to edibles, and those regulations limit products in general to 100
• Enforcing existing regulations prohibiting products attractive to children, and strengthening those regulations
• You've had the ability for regulators to take action.

Transcript Highlights:

• The USDA actually mirrored our regulations.
• First, I want to make it clear that we support regulation.
• We regulate alcohol. We regulate other stuff that we have.
• I appreciate these regulations. And no, I'm sober.
• Your regulations are minimal, almost none. Your regulations are minimal, almost none.

Committee: Senate Fiscal Policy

Summary: The Committee on Fiscal Policy considered several bills and reported all of them favorably. SB 70-24, on state planning and budgeting, was presented as a modernization of the long-range planning program to simplify reporting, remove outdated measures, and focus on key data points and outcomes; it passed without opposition. CS/SB 166, on administrative efficiency in public schools, made broad changes to school accountability and operations, including lowering the stakes of certain student assessments, giving districts more flexibility on evaluations, contracts, certification, calendars, facilities, and VPK oversight. Two amendments were adopted: one clarifying that Title I funds may be used for STEM services, and another refining how advanced degrees count on salary schedules. The bill passed favorably after testimony both supporting and opposing the changes, with supporters emphasizing flexibility and opponents raising concerns about teacher evaluation and instructional practice. CS/SB 164, on vessel accountability, was described as a measure to address derelict and at-risk vessels by improving owner identification, creating a free long-term anchoring permit program, increasing penalties, and authorizing grants for local governments in the FWC prevention program. It received support from marine industry groups and was reported favorably. CS/SB 472, on education and correctional facilities for licensed professions, would allow inmates to receive credit toward licensure for qualifying coursework; a strike-all amendment added coordination with DBPR and professional boards. The bill drew support from criminal justice, business, and policy groups and passed unanimously. The committee spent the most time on CS/SB 438, on food and hemp products. Senator Burton and co-sponsor Senator Davis argued the bill was needed to regulate intoxicating hemp products, restrict child-appealing packaging and signage, ban synthetic hemp products, cap THC content in edibles and beverages, and require hemp beverages to be sold through alcohol-style distribution channels. Supporters, including alcohol distributors and some public safety advocates, said the bill would improve testing, labeling, and consumer protection. Opponents, including hemp retailers, farmers, and libertarian advocates, argued it would harm small businesses, reduce consumer choice, and push sales to the black market. After extensive debate, the bill was reported favorably. At the end of the meeting, senators requested to be recorded as voting in the affirmative on tab five, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• And those we do regulate.
• and state regulations.
• So we do regulate them. And about half of assisted livings within CCRCs are regulated by age.
• or rest home regulations.
• or rest home regulations.

Summary: The Special Commission on Continuing Care Retirement Communities met for its third meeting, focused on regulations, oversight, and enforcement. Staff and agency presenters reviewed the current framework: the Executive Office of Aging and Independence explained that assisted living regulations generally do not apply to CCRCs unless an assisted living component markets itself separately, and that CCRCs must submit marketing materials, contracts, and disclosure statements for public posting. The Attorney General’s office described Chapter 93A consumer protection standards and noted it is working on draft assisted living-specific regulations. DPH outlined its oversight of licensed nursing facilities associated with some CCRCs, including routine surveys, complaint investigations, and enforcement tools such as admissions freezes, fines, receivership, and license actions, along with federal CMS sanctions for certified facilities. Commission members and presenters then discussed gaps and ambiguities in how CCRCs are defined and regulated, especially whether communities without on-site skilled nursing should still be treated as CCRCs, how assisted living-like services within CCRCs are classified, and whether residents have enough clarity about the services they are buying. A major theme was disclosure: members raised concerns about entrance fees, refund timing and conditions, whether skilled nursing is on-site or provided by contract, and how residents can compare communities. Several participants suggested more standardized disclosure and possibly broader consumer protection rules, while others cautioned that overly rigid requirements could affect community finances and development. The commission also explored enforcement and resident protections. Some members argued that independent living residents are already covered by landlord-tenant law and that existing complaint systems and community education may be sufficient, while others said residents in supported or assisted settings within CCRCs should have clearer access to ombudsman services and oversight. The discussion turned to closure and ownership transfer, with members citing recent national examples of sales and bankruptcies that changed resident terms. DPH explained its closure process for licensed nursing facilities, and members noted that Chapter 197 of 2024 adds oversight for facility transfers and financial disclosures. The meeting ended with logistics for the next session at Brookhaven at Lexington on June 2, a public hearing on June 16, and a request to circulate the hearing notice broadly to residents and stakeholder organizations.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I'm proposing that the second bill be a regulation.
• We'd have the second bill, which would be the regulation.
• for regulations?
• They cite the, you know, kind of a national act for regulation.
• Do we know enough to be able to adequately regulate it properly?

Summary: The working group met for a legislative-only discussion on kratom ahead of a special session, with members agreeing to keep remarks brief and noting a public open house and expert testimony would follow the next week. Staff provided an overview of kratom regulation, describing the substance, its psychoactive effects, reported health risks, federal DEA action on 7-OH, state approaches, and North Dakota’s recent executive action and special session call. Legislators then debated whether the state should prohibit kratom, regulate it, or distinguish between natural kratom and synthetic or concentrated 7-OH products. Several members cited extensive testimony from the 2025 session, including House Bill 1101, which would have scheduled kratom as a Schedule I substance and failed in the House, and House Bill 1566, which evolved into a study. Supporters of regulation emphasized testimony from people who said natural kratom helped with chronic pain or function, while others stressed concerns about addiction, adulterated products, youth access, infant withdrawal, and deaths linked to kratom or 7-OH. Members also discussed enforcement and public health issues, including whether the Good Samaritan law should be updated, how law enforcement would respond under the executive order, and whether withdrawal could drive people toward harder drugs. One member urged a temporary approach until the 2027 session, while others argued the short special session could still address a narrow ban on 7-OH and tighter controls on natural kratom. No votes were taken, and the meeting ended with plans for additional testimony and further legislative hearings during the special session.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's no regulation at all.
• by this, regulated by the state.
• by this, regulated by the state.
• I mean, if we're going to just regulate, can we have the regulations without the three-tier?
• We're going to have regulations to regulate it. Safety inspections.

Committees: House Judiciary , House Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence

Transcript Highlights:

• And uh it's regulated they're going to. And uh it's regulated by<00:10:32.040><c> states.
• not regulated.
• What are we going to regulate? What aren't we going to regulate?
• What are we going to regulate?
• What aren't we going to regulate? What aren't we going to regulate?

Committee: Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection

Transcript Highlights:

• or to overturn all of the regulations. ...all of the regulations or to overturn all of the regulations
• are regulations everything from these are regulations that<05:41:43.920><c> were</c><05:41:44.120><c
• regulation after Regulation after regulation after regulation<06:00:50.000><c> is</c><06:00:50.200><
• Uh, excuse me—regulation. These aren’t legislation; these are regulations.
• As a former energy regulator, I know the value of smart, efficient regulation.

Transcript Highlights:

• Please call the next regulation.
• Please call the next regulation.
• Please call the next regulation.
• Please call the next regulation.
• Please call the next regulation.

Summary: The subcommittee met with a quorum present, approved the minutes without objection, and then reviewed a series of administrative regulations from multiple agencies. Most of the regulations received staff-suggested amendments and were approved without objection, including fish and wildlife rules on fishing limits and deer hunting on local government property, veterinary board changes to responsible party and veterinary manager requirements, election procedures for safe-at-home voters, attorney general regulatory relief rules, emergency gasoline tax pricing, public pensions updates, controller fraud-prevention policies, physical therapy licensure and English proficiency standards, school nutrition and fee-waiver rules, public health conference procedures, and Medicaid waiver regulations. Several agencies briefly identified themselves and answered procedural questions, but most items drew no substantive opposition. The Board of Veterinary Examiners regulation included an agency amendment that removed a proposed limit on the number of facilities a veterinary manager could oversee. The Department of Education regulations updated fee waiver and meal program procedures, while the Department of Public Health regulation clarified notification and conference-request procedures. The Department of Revenue and Kentucky Public Pensions Authority items were largely technical or conforming changes, including a special-needs trust definition added for consistency with Senate Bill 85. The most extensive discussion involved the Department for Medicaid Services’ 1915C child waiver regulations. Kentucky Protection and Advocacy testified in opposition to the waiver’s lack of participant-directed services, arguing that consumer-driven services such as respite and community living support are required and especially important in rural areas and for higher-acuity children. Cabinet representatives responded that the waiver is intended to provide wraparound services to keep children in homes and communities, that it has CMS approval, and that the program is limited to 100 slots with about 21 participants already enrolled. Members did not move a deficiency motion, and the chair indicated the regulations would continue through the process. The meeting adjourned after setting the next meeting for Tuesday, August 11 at 1:00 p.m.