Transcript Highlights:

• We prioritize the protection of our children and the rights of parents to make informed decisions about
• So something like a breast augmentation is considered cosmetic and adults making that decision.
• So something like a breast augmentation is considered cosmetic, and adults making that decision, and
• And I would encourage you to make decisions based on peer-reviewed studies. Madam Chair?
• Studies, and I would encourage you to make decisions based on peer-reviewed studies.

Bills: SB1015, SB1049, SB1066, SB1081, SB1092, SB1133, SB1134, SB1139, SB1147, SB1148, SB1168, SB1189, SCR1001, SCR1002, SCR1005, SCR1010

Keywords: gender transition, detransition, healthcare liability, medical malpractice, youth protection, legal action, Arizona law, spousal maintenance, court guidelines, self-sufficiency, financial support, marriage dissolution, child safety, dependency cases, attorney regulation, foster care, legal representation, probation, dangerous crimes, children

Summary: The Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee heard several bills and took action on multiple measures. SB 1066 would create civil liability for knowingly or recklessly publishing fraudulent scientific research, allowing the Attorney General, county attorneys, and injured parties to sue; the sponsor and supporters argued it would deter research fraud and protect the public, while opponents warned it would chill research and speech. After debate over peer review, fraud standards, and the bill’s scope, the committee voted 4-3 to give SB 1066 a do-pass recommendation. SB 1015 would impose strict personal liability on providers who perform gender transition procedures on minors, including liability for later detransition costs and injuries; supporters framed it as accountability for irreversible treatment on children, while opponents called it discriminatory and likely to function as a backdoor ban. After testimony from the sponsor, medical professionals, detransitioners, and civil liberties advocates, the committee also passed SB 1015 on a 4-3 vote. The committee then considered SB 1049, which would limit spousal maintenance awards to four years and change the factors courts use in setting support. The sponsor said the bill was intended to curb long-term maintenance and align support with self-sufficiency, while judicial and family-law witnesses explained the existing guideline system, the 2022-2025 court study, and concerns that a hard cap could ignore case-specific circumstances such as disability or housing instability. The committee adopted an amendment setting the duration cap at four years and approved the bill as amended by a 4-2 vote. SB 1189, allowing campaign funds to be used for personal security for candidates and family members, passed unanimously after supporters cited threats against public officials and personal experiences with harassment. The committee also passed SB 1081, which would prevent a Department of Child Safety attorney from appearing before a judge they had appeared before in the prior five DCS cases; the sponsor said it was meant to reduce familiarity between attorneys and judges, while opponents raised concerns about rural court access and arbitrary limits. SB 1133, which would eliminate the need for a candidate to file a second financial disclosure statement if one had already been filed that year, was amended to add an emergency clause and passed unanimously. The committee then moved to SCR 1001, a referral measure to end early voting at 7 p.m. on the Friday before the general election and require affirmative request for a mail ballot by voters who have provided proof of citizenship; the transcript cuts off as that measure was being introduced.

Transcript Highlights:

• Finding no probable cause in the case would just go away. 132 If a judge wants to make that decision,
• It's not hard to make the right decision at all. It is not hard at all.
• The bad decisions that they make in Harris County become my bad defendant.
• First, let's talk about local decision making and fairness.
• In which the case is pending, to be able to make those decisions.

Bills: SB9, SB1047, SB1048, SJR17, SJR49, SB40, SJR1, SJR5, SB 9, SB 40, SJR 1

Keywords: bail reform, defendants, pretrial detention, public safety, criminal justice, charitable bail organizations, criminal procedure, public safety report, victim notification, family violence, bail bonds, public funds, political subdivision, injunction, taxpayer rights, violent crimes, sexual offenses, community safety, constitutional amendment, trafficking

Transcript Highlights:

• I guess I have a question on that because when is—when does the Pension Funding Council make its decision
• I guess I have a question on that because when is when does the Pension Funding Council make its decision
• When does the Pension Funding Council make its decision? Is it after, before our next meeting?
• the decision.
• informed investment decisions.

Summary: The committee approved the July minutes and then received an informational presentation from the Office of the State Actuary on the financial condition of the state retirement systems. The actuary reported that employer contribution rates are generally declining, helped by strong investment returns and reduced funding for PERS 1 and TERS 1, while funded ratios have continued to improve; on a combined basis the plans were reported at 100% funded in 2024, with open plans above 95% and legacy plans varying by system. The presentation also reviewed projected rates and funded ratios under current assumptions, noted that pension costs are taking a smaller share of the state general fund, and discussed risks from investment volatility, policy changes, and demographic experience. Committee members asked about savings from lower rates, deferred asset smoothing, and how Washington compares with other states. The committee then considered the state actuary’s recommendation on long-term economic assumptions and adopted all four recommendations by roll call votes: inflation at 3.0%, general salary growth at 3.5%, membership growth for Plan 1 funding at 1.0%, and investment rate of return at 7.25%. The actuaries explained that the inflation and salary growth increases were driven largely by higher long-term inflation expectations, while the investment return recommendation matched the current statutory assumption. Members discussed the timing of the Pension Funding Council’s decision, the effect of tariffs and inflation uncertainty, and how assumption changes would affect future contribution rates and budgets, particularly for open plans. Staff then gave an update on the LEOFF 1 study, explaining the difference between being “ahead of schedule” and truly overfunded, and summarizing responses received from DRS, the State Treasurer, and the State Investment Board on the merger and restatement proposals. DRS said both bills could be administered, though the merger bill’s COLA banking provision would be challenging until its new system is ready; the Treasurer urged caution, especially about the restatement bill and the use of one-time funds; and the Investment Board said removing assets from the trust would have some transaction costs but likely small impacts. The committee discussed whether to invite additional agencies and local government groups to testify, and staff said more responses, including from Ice Miller and the State Actuary, were expected for the October meeting. Finally, the committee heard a briefing on PERS 1/TERS 1 COLA policy and related bills from the last session. Staff reviewed the committee’s prior ongoing COLA recommendation, the SCPP-endorsed bills that would have created a one-time 3% COLA followed by an ongoing COLA, the Senate merger bill, and a separate ad hoc COLA bill. Public testimony largely supported Plan 1 COLAs and stable contribution rates, while several speakers urged caution about transferring LEOFF 1 surplus assets or merging legacy plans, and others raised concerns about climate risk and the pension fund’s investments. No further committee action was taken on the COLA item during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• My conclusion is that these discussions, decisions that can make multimillion-dollar impacts on communities
• to get real data and factual information, then work together to make the best decision for the community
• their decisions.
• that decision.
• So does that make sense to you?

Summary: The committee met in Grand Forks, approved the February 26 minutes by voice vote, and recessed for a tour of Minnkota Power Cooperative before hearing presentations on large energy consumers and related infrastructure issues. The first presentation, from the North Dakota Transmission Authority, focused on the need for better local decision-making tools for counties, townships, and planning and zoning boards facing major projects such as transmission lines, pipelines, data centers, wind, solar, and large-scale agriculture. The speaker urged more objective, data-driven analysis, noted that local officials often have limited time and resources, and said the state should support training and tools through groups like the League of Cities and the Association of Counties. Members asked about proactive outreach, data center ordinances, and how to avoid subsidizing large loads or causing reliability problems. The Division of Air Quality then discussed environmental oversight of data centers, emphasizing that North Dakota’s air remains among the cleanest in the country and that the agency’s role is limited to air, water discharge, stormwater, and waste—not zoning or water use. The presentation explained that data centers generally have low direct emissions but may rely on diesel backup generators when the grid is unavailable, which creates air-quality concerns; the department said it is requiring air monitors at some projects to collect real-world data and guide future decisions. Members asked about generator emissions, misinformation, monitoring costs, and staffing succession, and the agency said permit applicants pay for the monitors while the state handles some QA work. The Department of Water Resources followed with an overview of North Dakota water law and data center water use. The director explained the state’s prior-appropriation system, the public-interest review for permits, and the large overall water supply available from groundwater and the Missouri River. He said most proposed data centers use closed-loop cooling systems and generally request relatively small amounts of water compared with other uses such as power plants, irrigation, and oilfield operations, and that even a worst-case data center scenario would use only a tiny fraction of Missouri River flow. Questions focused on downstream impacts and comparisons to fracking water use, and the director said the state’s use is too small to materially affect downstream users. Later, McLean County State’s Attorney Ladd-Erickson testified online about data center zoning and permitting. He asked the committee to have Legislative Council gather information on how other states handle data center permitting and to keep the topic on the interim agenda. He argued that local zoning should remain local, but said counties lack the technical and legal resources to manage complex reclamation or bonding requirements and that state-level enabling legislation may be more appropriate. He also recommended eliminating tax incentives for data centers. The committee chair said staff would prepare a document on other states’ zoning and permitting approaches. After a lunch recess, the committee reconvened at the EERC, where CEO Charles Gorecki gave an overview of the center’s 75 years of work and its role in oil and gas, carbon management, and other energy technologies, highlighting enhanced oil recovery and carbon dioxide utilization as major opportunities for future production and tax revenue.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:14:47.040> In and can make decisions with clarity.
• In and can make decisions with clarity.
• This is where we members of Congress now have to make a decision.
• This is where we members of Congress now have to make a decision.
• This is where we members of Congress now have to make a decision.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Thursday, January 15, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we're going to go back, then we'll go into decision-making.
• So we're going to go back, then we'll go into decision-making.
• go into decision- making very shortly. go into decision- making very shortly.
• So, we're going to recess and be back for decision making.
• /c><00:42:05.359> measure decision making on the first measure decision making on the first measure

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Committee on Hawaiian Affairs heard nominations for several members of the Burial Council and the Hawaiian Homes Commission. For Burial Council nominations, the Department of Land and Natural Resources’ Historic Preservation Division testified in support of Leimana Abunes, Cyrus Sito, Chantel Freeman, and Chadley Shiml Fenig, emphasizing their genealogical ties, cultural knowledge, experience with iwi kupuna, and commitment to preservation and reinterment. Each nominee also briefly introduced themselves and described their background and motivation to serve. Committee members said they had favorable conversations with the nominees and indicated votes would be taken at the end of the agenda. The committee then took up Governor’s Message 773, Shaylin Ornellas, for the Hawaiian Homes Commission. Testimony in support was strong, including 45 written supports and no opposition, along with oral testimony from the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and community supporters. Supporters highlighted Ornellas’ education, real estate and development experience, public service, and connection to Kauaʻi and homestead communities. Ornellas said she was answering a call to serve and discussed her background and commitment to the community. Members questioned Ornellas closely about Act 279, the DHHL waitlist, beneficiary consultation, housing options, and the department’s “paper lease” practice. She said Act 279 was intended to help reduce the waitlist, supported broader housing options and beneficiary input, and acknowledged limited familiarity with the technical details of paper leases. One senator raised concerns that paper leases may not guarantee actual lots and urged further research. The discussion also touched on policy issues such as beneficiaries maintaining their waitlist positions after declining offers or taking rentals, with committee members noting these are commission policy choices rather than statutory mandates.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senators, this bill supports the values we all hold dear: transparency, educated decision-making, the
• in their mind to make that best decision for their children.
• Three days later, the family had to make the decision to take her off life support.
• and the right of our parents to make decisions they believe are best.
• and the right of our parents to make decisions they believe are best.

Bills: S0118, S0896, S1690, S1756

Keywords: recreational vehicle parks, special assessments, property tax, occupancy rates, commercial assessment, school safety, guardian program, firearms, crimes near schools, security assessments, public postsecondary education, medical freedom, vaccination, ivermectin, healthcare practitioner liability, immunization exemptions

Summary: The committee first took up CS for SB 896, a school safety bill expanding the Guardian program to public postsecondary institutions. The bill requires active assailant response plans, security risk assessments, threat-management protocols, use of the suspicious activity reporting tool, and allows voluntary participation in Guardian for colleges and universities. A late-file amendment by Senator Polsky was adopted to clarify that students who are also employees or faculty are not eligible for Guardian. Members debated campus carry concerns, storage of firearms, and whether the bill could lead to broader gun access on campuses. Several faculty and gun-safety advocates testified against the bill, while supporters argued trained guardians can deter violence. The committee reported the bill favorably by roll call vote. The committee then approved CS for CS for CS for SB 1690 on child care and early learning services. The bill updates child care laws, clarifies regulations, and reduces overregulation of before- and after-school programs. An amendment expanded authority for the Florida Education Foundation to fundraise for early learning from birth to VPK. Testimony was largely supportive, emphasizing affordability, access to quality child care, and relief for working families, though one speaker opposed the bill as an expansion of government. The bill was reported favorably. Next, the committee passed CS for CS for SB 118, which clarifies how non-ad valorem special assessments are applied to recreational vehicle parks and limits the square footage used for assessment purposes to the maximum size of an RV space. The committee also approved CS for CS for SB 1220, the Department of Transportation package, which addresses seaport and airport planning, personal delivery devices, autonomous vehicles, advanced air mobility, toll programming, and other transportation-related changes. Amendments modified provisions on personal delivery devices, utility permits, autonomous vehicle penalties, and law-enforcement cruiser lights. Both bills were reported favorably. Finally, the committee began hearing SB 1756, the medical freedom bill, which proposes new vaccine information requirements, conscience-based school immunization exemptions, limits on compelled vaccination during public health emergencies, and behind-the-counter access to ivermectin for adults. The sponsor and supporters framed the bill as strengthening informed consent and parental rights, while opponents and some senators raised concerns about vaccine hesitancy, herd immunity, and the inclusion of ivermectin. Public testimony was extensive and sharply divided. The transcript ends during continued testimony and debate on SB 1756, before a final vote is taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• I believe all of that would factor into the decision that a fact finder might make in terms of whether
• I believe all of that would factor into the decision that a fact finder might make in terms of whether
• Doctors are going to make the economic decision to avoid treating high-risk pregnancies.
• They can make their own decisions. Our job as parents is to teach and guide our children.
• They're involved in decisions that we make.

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard Senate Bill 1272 on guardianship, which would limit a guardian’s ability to isolate an adult ward from family and require notice of major events such as a ward’s death or relocation to a more restrictive setting. Senator Jones and supportive speakers said the bill was intended to protect wards from abuse and isolation by bad actors, while still preserving good-faith guardianship. With no opposition testimony or debate, the committee voted 8-0 to report the bill favorably. The committee then considered CS for Senate Bill 1284, which would expand Florida’s Wrongful Death Act to allow civil claims for the death of an unborn child. An amendment was adopted to define “unborn child” as a member of the species Homo sapiens carried in the womb and to state that the act does not authorize claims against the mother or against health care providers acting within the lawful standard of care. The bill drew extensive debate and testimony. Supporters argued it would give parents parity and fuller damages, including economic losses and mental anguish, when negligence causes the death of an unborn child. Opponents, including the ACLU, medical professionals, and reproductive rights advocates, warned it could be used to target abortion care, increase malpractice exposure, worsen physician shortages, and create speculative damages. The committee approved the bill 6-4. Finally, the committee took up Senate Bill 1288 on parental rights, with a strike-all amendment that would strengthen parental control over minors’ medical decisions, surveys, and biofeedback devices, while adding exceptions for emergencies, court orders, certain legal statuses, and situations involving abuse or out-of-home placement. Supporters said the measure restores parents as primary decision-makers and protects children from inappropriate questioning or treatment without consent. Opponents argued it could block minors from confidential care for STIs, mental health, or abuse-related issues, and could chill school and medical screenings. The transcript ends during testimony and debate on this bill, before any final vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• I do want to make sure this is clear.
• Really dive into these projects, not just what they are, but the decisions that we make along the way
• And it was the right decision.
• So those sorts of challenges can come up, and ultimately making a quick decision, especially when the
• to make?

Transcript Highlights:

• the right decisions.
• So you will make sure that this section of the DOJ.
• and the White House counsels made in making that decision.
• We have watched our colleagues say not a word when they knew Joe Biden was not making the decisions,
• How do we make sure that main streets can thrive?

Keywords: nominations, Deputy Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Todd Blanch, Gail Slater, confirmation hearing

Summary: The meeting focused on the nominations of Todd Blanch and Gail Slater for the positions of Deputy Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, respectively. The committee considered the qualifications of both nominees, with opening statements provided by the nominees themselves. There was an evident emphasis on the rigorous vetting process that nominees undergo before their selection, highlighting the importance of the roles within the Department of Justice. Members of the committee engaged in a structured question-and-answer session to further evaluate the nominees' capabilities and fit for the positions they were nominated for, with each member allotted seven minutes to pose questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• They understood kind of the situation that we were in with some of the decisions that we've had to make
• Were in with some of the decisions that we've had to make on this.
• I'm open, I mean, I don't feel comfortable making... I don't feel comfortable making decisions.
• The decision we would make on this line item would, either if we, if my understanding is, and there's
• And then when they make a decision like this, it just, you know, it disrupts the budgets.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee took up Senate Bill 2025, the Veterans Home/Veterans Affairs budget, and worked through the long sheet line by line. Members discussed base payroll, salary and health insurance increases, FTE pool adjustments, IT rate increases, operating expenses, transportation grants, the PTSD service dog program, salary equity requests, temporary help/intern funding, a Veterans Benefit Specialist FTE, accrued leave, and several one-time or carryover items including the Fisher House, document scanning, and veterans medical transportation. The committee also reviewed proposed policy language that would shift governance authority for the Veterans Home and Department of Veterans Affairs from the Administrative Committee on Veterans Affairs to the governor, and would remove board authority over salary-setting and related hiring powers. A major portion of the meeting focused on clarifying the commissioner salary equity line and how the agency had shifted operating dollars to fund the commissioner’s current salary increase. After discussion with agency staff and Lonnie, the committee voted to remove the separate commissioner salary equity increase line and instead restore operating funding, ultimately setting the operating line at $50,000 above the prior amount rather than fully funding the executive request. The committee also approved funding for the Veterans Benefit Specialist FTE, approved a carryforward/exemption for accrued leave, approved authority to accept $200,000 in federal transportation grant funds, approved the $500,000 transfers related to veterans homelessness, and approved the exemption language for certain federal/state fiscal recovery funds after discussing whether the funds were properly obligated. On the governance amendment, members expressed concern about making a major policy change in an appropriations bill, but also frustration over the board’s salary actions. After debate, the committee adopted the amendment transferring governance authority to the governor by a 7-1 vote. The committee also approved a smaller amount for veteran service officer salary equity than requested, and rejected funding for temporary salaries and an intern. The chair then directed staff to prepare the amended bill for further action, with the committee planning to revisit it once the revised version was ready.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're asking young adults to make six-figure decisions with a brain that isn't fully built for long-term
• We don't criticize their decisions. We highlight their decisions. We highlight the business acumen.
• And that's like the foundation of everything, making sure that they have that and, you know, making sure
• I just made a decision. Right.
• make decisions that they don't want to make without the right information.

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on name, image, and likeness (NIL) and financial literacy for student athletes, with members framing California as a national leader on NIL but emphasizing the need for stronger protections and more consistent education. The chair and witnesses discussed how NIL opportunities now include both third-party endorsement deals and school revenue-sharing arrangements, and how the current landscape varies widely by institution, leaving athletes with a patchwork of rules and support. Several witnesses argued that student athletes, especially younger ones and those from low-income or first-generation backgrounds, are vulnerable to predatory contracts, tax problems, and pressure from family, agents, or lenders. The first panel featured Tyree Dillingham and Brandon Copeland, who called for standardized financial literacy, better guardrails against predatory NIL advances, and a player-led association or similar collective voice for athletes. They described examples of athletes not understanding paychecks, taxes, or contract terms, and warned that some schools and collectives blur the line between education and marketing. Copeland also argued that college athletics now functions like a professional business and that athletes need representation and a standard contract structure to protect them. The second panel focused on lived experience, including testimony from attorney Anthony Coronae and student athlete Mikey Williams. Coronae described reviewing a contract that he said functioned like a predatory loan disguised as marketing support, with the company taking exclusive rights to Williams’ NIL and requiring repayment far beyond the advance. Williams testified that he signed without a lawyer, later lost endorsements, scholarship, and housing stability, and only later learned the contract’s consequences. He said a required financial literacy course at Sacramento State helped him begin to understand budgeting, taxes, and contracts, and he urged the legislature to require legal review or stronger safeguards for athletes. The third panel, from San Diego State University, highlighted a more structured institutional model. Athletic director Brendan Hill described a mandatory four-year life-skills program that includes financial literacy, resume workshops, internships, and branding education, while student athlete Sloan Benchoff said the program helped her manage money and prepare for post-college life. Witnesses agreed that support is uneven across schools, that some agents and lenders are exploiting athletes, and that California should consider standardized financial education and agent regulation while also being careful not to create rules that unintentionally restrict athlete rights. No formal vote or bill action was taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• At DFA, it does take us a little bit of time to review those applications, vet them, and make decisions
• This also allows us to use the data to make more informed decisions. So thank you.
• We can free up money, but you're going to make... these are tough decisions that shrinking budgets and
• Again, that's a decision of the legislature to make.
• And so, who's going to make that decision? The State Fair Commission?

Transcript Highlights:

• We've got to make sure that we're, you know, taking care of business here.
• I still believe that she needs to make that decision.
• <00:08:27.360> that<00:08:27.599> decision.
• <00:08:28.319> Um<00:08:28.720> the she needs to make that decision.
• Um the she needs to make that decision.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• committee to um make a decision and we committee to um make a decision and we were<01:31:03.120>
• make a decision and on a committee to make a decision and the<01:31:12.719> system<01:31:13.040
• the<01:33:45.600> level and who makes the decision at the level and who makes the decision
• <01:45:14.159> team someone making a decision at the team someone making a decision at the
• make that decision at as it is hard to make that decision at these<01:45:26.719> teens<01:45:

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee opened its second meeting on House Bill 742, which would require catastrophic special education aid to be drawn from the education trust fund, and discussed whether to also examine differentiated aid within the adequacy formula. The chair said the committee had previously heard from HHS/Medicaid officials and now wanted to hear from local special education directors about how the aid system works in practice, including billing, training, data collection, and whether districts handle claims consistently. Members also referenced Arkansas as a possible comparison state and said they hoped to develop ideas by November to address the current funding process. Committee members focused on the current special education aid thresholds and the impact of proration. The chair described the existing formula as requiring districts to absorb costs up to 3.5 times the state average per student, with the state paying 80% from 3.5 times through 10 times and paying above that, and said FY25 appropriated about $34 million while actual claims were about $50.1 million, leaving roughly a $16 million shortfall that caused proration. Members also raised the possibility of lowering the threshold to 2.5 times and asked how that would affect the number of eligible students and costs. Another member asked about how districts decide whether services are education-related or medical-related and how Medicaid or private insurance reimbursement affects later state aid claims. District representatives from Boothby Therapy Services, Bedford, and Guilford introduced themselves and described their roles. Guilford’s director said the district tracks students with paraprofessional support, nurses, transportation, or specialized programming, uses a data system to log every service touchpoint, and tries to maximize both Medicaid and special education aid; she said a lower threshold would likely capture all students with paras or nurses and that rising staffing and service costs would increase the number of students over the cap. Bedford’s assistant director said the district uses a different system, tracks roughly 60 to 80 students a year, and pursues Medicaid and special education aid simultaneously but does not pursue private insurance if it would affect FAPE; she said reducing the threshold to 2.5 times would likely double the number of qualifying students. Members asked follow-up questions about software, data entry, and how districts decide whether to bill Medicaid or seek state catastrophic aid, and the directors explained that their systems log services by staff type and student, with some districts using the same data for both Medicaid and state reimbursement claims.

Transcript Highlights:

• to make medical decisions for their children using accurate information and recommendations from their
• Today, I am 16 years old and I am healthy and blessed that I was not allowed to make the decision at
• So you draft a power of attorney and you give someone else the ability to make decisions on your behalf
• ... ...of guardians in this situation overstepping medical doctors or even professionals in this decision-making
• You have a trial court that makes decisions that doesn’t follow jurisprudence, which obviously goes to

Bills: SB1095, SB1127, SB1170, SB1208, SB1211, SB1237, SB1239, SB1240, SB1243, SB1244, SB1259, SB1283

Keywords: gender transition, minors, irreversible surgery, health professionals, puberty-blocking drugs, medical procedures, prohibition, Arizona Revised Statutes, reporting abuse, child neglect, mandatory reporting, child safety, medical treatment, faith exemptions, penalties, narcotic drugs, fentanyl, sentencing, drug offenses, juvenile justice

Summary: The committee first approved the January 21, 2026 minutes and held SB 1208. It then heard SB 1211, which would allow victims of felony aggravated harassment involving domestic violence to seek a lifetime injunction against the convicted defendant. The sponsor said the bill came from fellowship participants, and supporters from the Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, Amberle’s Place, and survivor advocates testified that repeated harassment and re-traumatization justify permanent protection. The committee voted 7-0 to give SB 1211 a do pass recommendation. Next, the committee considered SB 1239, which removes the statute of limitations for failing to register as a sex offender. The sponsor said DPS requested the change to close a loophole and hold offenders accountable even years later. Opponents from Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice argued existing warrant and registration processes already address the problem and that eliminating the time limit raises due process concerns and risks stale prosecutions. After discussion, the committee approved SB 1239 on a 4-3 vote. The committee also heard SB 1240, which excludes probationers convicted of dangerous crimes against children from the probation incentive payment formula. The sponsor tied the bill to a recent child sexual assault case and said the incentive system should not count these offenders. Opponents warned it could push probation departments to send more people to prison instead of treatment and that the bill’s language is broad. The committee passed SB 1240 on a 4-3 vote. It then took up SB 1095, as amended, which bans gender transition procedures and referrals for minors and limits public funding and use of public facilities for such care; supporters framed it as protecting children and parental rights, while opponents called it discriminatory and medically unsound. The committee adopted the amendment and gave the bill a 4-3 do pass as amended recommendation. Finally, the committee heard SB 1243 and SB 1244, both dealing with court-ordered mental health treatment. SB 1243 requires notice to guardians when a patient may be released early or when treatment may not be renewed, and allows guardians to seek an independent evaluation and petition for continued treatment; supporters said it helps families prevent dangerous gaps in care, while opponents raised due process concerns about non-medical guardians initiating petitions. The committee passed SB 1243 unanimously. SB 1244 creates a continuing court-ordered treatment process after a second consecutive annual review, reducing repeated renewal hearings while preserving annual reporting and objections; supporters said it prevents dangerous lapses in treatment for the sickest patients, while opponents warned it could weaken due process and allow indefinite confinement. The committee adopted an amendment and passed SB 1244 on a 6-1 vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• So they had to make some tough decisions.
• <02:44:43.040> different<02:44:43.359> decisions as states that make different decisions
• as states that make different decisions than<02:44:44.399> New<02:44:44.640> Hampshire
• So that was one of the decisions they knew they had to make.
• or<02:54:59.040> not<02:54:59.200> to had a decision to make whether or not to had

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Make a decision and fix it if we got to. So thank you, Chair. Question about that, though.
• Make a decision and fix it if we got to. going to go this way.
• make a decision and fix it if we got to. make a decision and fix it if we got to.
• commissioner's abilities to make commissioner's abilities to make decisions<02:49:15.840> when
• c> own<02:55:33.040> quasi make decisions through your own quasi make decisions through your

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee held an informational briefing on the Public Utilities Commission’s performance-based regulation (PBR) framework and the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs’ whistleblower complaint process. Chair Jared Kohole opened the meeting, noted it was informational only with no public testimony, and explained that members would hear presentations and then have an opportunity for questions. The committee heard first from Ulupono Initiative, which provided background on why utilities are regulated, how Hawaii’s cost-of-service model and rate cases work, and why PBR was adopted to shift utility incentives away from a capital-investment bias and toward performance, efficiency, cost control, and policy goals such as renewable energy and reliability. Ulupono described Hawaii’s PBR structure as a five-year multi-year rate plan with annual revenue adjustments, a customer dividend, a Z factor for extraordinary exogenous events, and an exceptional project recovery mechanism for large projects. It also outlined performance incentive mechanisms tied to renewable portfolio standard progress, interconnection speed, reliability, and shared savings. The presentation said the current docket is evaluating a possible hybrid approach that would combine forward-looking forecasting with historical results, and Ulupono advocated for stronger incentives, arguing the current rewards are too small relative to utility revenues and should be more meaningful to better align utility behavior with legislative intent. The PUC then presented its own overview, emphasizing that the PBR docket is open and active and that the briefing was limited to the record to avoid ex parte concerns. The commission described the development of PBR in Hawaii through multiple phases beginning in 2018: an initial collaborative phase to set goals, a formal contested-case phase that produced the initial framework, later phases adding scorecards, reported metrics, and additional performance incentive mechanisms, and subsequent refinements including sunset of some mechanisms and adjustments after the August 2023 Maui wildfires. The PUC said the framework is intended to be customer-centric, administratively efficient, and protective of utility financial integrity, and that current work includes evaluating how to balance forward-looking and historical test-year approaches within the rebasing process. No votes or formal actions were taken at the briefing.

Transcript Highlights:

• The PUC is going to be making those oversight decisions and helping the utility make the right choice
• , welcome back for decision-making.
• 151 we are going to defer decision 151 we are going to defer decision making making making until
• Should we go straight to decision making? Can do? Okay.
• > into<02:27:15.319> decision-<02:27:16.040> making We'll go straight into decision-making

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee on Energy and Environmental Protection heard testimony on Senate Bill 897, which would create a Wildlife Liability Trust Fund within DCCA for administrative purposes. The chair opened by noting the hearing had to end by noon because of floor session, and that written testimony would be considered if not all witnesses could speak. Testimony included support from DCCA, the Attorney General’s office, the Public Utilities Commission, Charter Communications, Ulupono Initiative, AES Hawaii, Hawaiian Electric, Clearway Energy Group, Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, Hawaiian Telcom, and IBW Local 1260, with opposition or concerns from the Hawaii Association for Justice and some others. Hawaiian Electric strongly supported the bill and asked for amendments, saying the fund would help address wildfire liability, protect customers and the economy, and support restoration of investment-grade credit; it also proposed a larger shareholder contribution and said the bill was part of a broader effort to raise settlement funds and improve grid safety and resiliency. Committee members focused heavily on whether the bill would actually lower costs for ratepayers and improve credit ratings. DCCA said there was a nexus between limiting liability, creating a sufficiently large wildfire fund, and transparent mitigation requirements, but acknowledged there was no guarantee of a credit-rating improvement or precise estimate of rate impacts. Members questioned Hawaiian Electric about the assumptions in its cost comparisons, the 30-year securitization structure, and whether funding could be shifted later to shareholders after credit was restored. Hawaiian Electric responded that the bill assumes the fund is paid through securitization, that removing that presumption could undermine the credit-rating benefit, and that its models suggest credit-spread savings could offset the customer charge over time; it also said it would follow up with additional analysis. The company and Ulupono both described the measure as a difficult but potentially necessary way to socialize wildfire risk and avoid a larger crisis later. The Hawaii Association for Justice opposed the bill’s liability caps and raised concerns about consumer rights, oversight discretion, statute-of-limitations changes, and evidence rules. Hawaiian Telcom suggested amendments to clarify compliance with FCC pole-attachment agreements. No vote or final action was taken during the portion of the hearing provided, and members indicated they wanted more analysis before being comfortable with the bill’s long-term ratepayer impacts.

Transcript Highlights:

• And before you make your presentation, can you make sure you introduce yourself?
• successfully enabling the large-scale transformation by performing critical activities, challenging decision-making
• I know that you are the face of this, so you're not making this decision.
• This is a political decision, and not a policy decision.
• But I know you did not make the decision; you're just so I appreciate you being here.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 5 heard updates from the Secretary of State, EDD, the State Controller’s Office, CalHR, and DGS on a range of budget proposals and federal policy impacts. Secretary of State Shirley Weber opened with remarks about California’s election system, emphasizing its safety, transparency, high voter registration and vote-by-mail participation, and the office’s response to bomb threats and other election threats. Her staff then presented funding requests for the Cal-Access Replacement System (CARS) and Help America Vote Act/VoteCal activities, describing them as needed to modernize campaign finance and lobbying disclosure systems and maintain election security and voter services. A major portion of the hearing focused on federal election policy, especially the potential effects of a presidential executive order and the SAVE Act. Secretary of State staff said California would face significant, potentially unquantifiable costs if forced to comply, including new burdens on county recorders, county election offices, and the Secretary of State’s office, and warned of voter disenfranchisement, especially for students, seniors, disabled voters, military and overseas voters, rural residents, and people with limited transportation. Members and public commenters strongly opposed the federal proposals and argued California’s current system is functioning well. The committee also heard that federal HAVA funds were not expected to be at risk because the state draws them down into an interest-bearing account. EDD reported on paid family leave, explaining that recent delays were tied to a system transition and increased claim volume, and said it was simplifying applications and adding staff and automation. Public testimony supported expanding paid family leave to chosen family. EDD also said it is prepared for possible unemployment spikes, citing a recession plan, a command center, and recent hiring. The State Controller’s Office requested funding to continue the Fiscal migration project, which would move the state’s accounting book of record to the new system by July 1, 2026; Finance and LAO had no objections, and the committee expressed support for the project’s progress. CalHR presented a proposal for a statewide recruitment, outreach, and education paid media campaign under AB 1511, saying its current advertising budget is too small to reach diverse communities effectively. The final item addressed Governor Newsom’s executive order requiring a return to office on a four-day schedule. CalHR and DGS said they were working department-by-department to assess space, parking, transit, and other logistics, but had not completed a statewide cost analysis. Members and many public commenters criticized the order, arguing it was rushed, costly, harmful to telework benefits, and potentially disruptive to workers, especially those with disabilities, caregiving responsibilities, or long commutes. No votes were taken during the hearing.