Transcript Highlights:

• You call every person to make sacrifices for the good of others and to use their talents for a noble
• I call it a place of grace. And thank you guys so much for being here today.
• I call it a place of grace. And thank you guys so much for being here today.
• I hate that you had to call me after Senator Bracey Davis with that introduction. Thank you, Mr.
• Before we go forward, Senator Hooper has an announcement. Thank you, Mr. President.

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Gantt: Thank you.
• Gantt: Thank you.
• >> Chair: You are recognized. >> Rep. Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for that question.
• Abbott: When you say fiscal impact, THIS ENTIRE 281 PROCESS THAT IS MENTIONED BEFORE AND AFTERWARDS 282
• Thank you.

Summary: The State Administration Budget Subcommittee met to consider four conforming committee bills tied to the proposed 2026-27 House General Appropriations Act. Rep. Maggard presented PCB SAB 26-04, the annual retirement bill, which updates Florida Retirement System contribution rates based on the annual actuarial study and was said to produce a $31.7 million state savings. He also presented PCB SAB 26-02, which addresses collective bargaining impasses for state employees by tying resolution to spending decisions in the appropriations act or implementing legislation. Both bills drew brief questions, mainly from Rep. Gantt, and both passed favorably on roll call. Rep. Miller presented PCB SAB 26-03, which reorganizes state audit functions and creates the Florida Accountability Office, consolidating legislative audit work into four divisions and adding whistleblower protections and reporting requirements. Rep. Gantt asked whether the bill changed the use of outside auditors and whether it had a fiscal impact; Miller said the work would be absorbed within existing resources and that the Legislature would retain responsibility. A taxpayer witness supported the bill and urged stronger local-government audit standards and broader whistleblower coverage. The bill passed favorably. Rep. Abbott presented PCB SAB 26-01, a broader appropriations conforming bill focused on the State Employee Health Insurance Trust Fund, prescription drug formulary changes, a health insurance assessment on agencies and vacant positions, the $3 traffic violation surcharge for the State Law Enforcement Radio System, Capitol complex space management, and changes to the Office of Supplier Diversity. Much of the discussion centered on whether a closed formulary would make medications harder to obtain, with Abbott saying prior authorization would still allow access and that the change was needed to control costs and protect the trust fund. Rep. Gantt and Rep. Robinson raised concerns about employee health benefits and the repeal of supplier diversity provisions, arguing the committee lacked data on the impact to minority- and women-owned businesses; Abbott said the changes would still allow small businesses to compete and that the bill was intended to save money and modernize procurement. PCB SAB 26-01 also passed favorably, and the meeting adjourned after all agenda items were reported out.

Transcript Highlights:

• You may? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And if I could speak very briefly to that motion. You may.
• So thank you. Representative Rubel. Thank you.
• Obviously, if you can just read these emails and phone calls we've gotten, there's definitely a lot of
• Roll call shows five ayes, 11 nays. Motion has failed. that we can all get behind. So thank you.
• For roll call vote, please. Roll call vote has been called for. called for Chairman.

Committee: House Health and Welfare

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• know, the principal, somebody there, before you do it, before you use a drone or whatever above the
• Thank you. Thank you. Next. I called out the two names. Yeah, go ahead. Thank you.
• And I call on you guys to do that and discuss that. And, yeah, so thank you.
• Call on you guys to do that and discuss that. And, yeah, so thank you. Good job. Thank you.
• Call the roll. Call the roll. Senator Hottley? Senator Kuby? Can you explain my vote?

Summary: The committee heard and acted on several bills dealing with elections, juvenile representation, paternity, and campaign finance. SB 1489 would require paid petition circulators to disclose their name, residence, and paid status, wear a badge, register in some local petition efforts, and subject local initiatives to stricter compliance and fiscal disclosure rules. Supporters said it would standardize rules and improve transparency; opponents, including the ACLU, argued it would chill core political speech and compel identification. The bill received a do-pass recommendation by a 4-3 vote. SB 1609, an emergency measure restricting political party names from using terms like “independent” or “unaffiliated,” drew support from county election officials who said it would reduce voter confusion, and opposition from the Arizona Independent Party, which called it retroactive and anti-competitive. The committee adopted an amendment and then passed the bill 7-0. SCR 1040, which would raise the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 75 subject to voter approval, was supported as reflecting longer life expectancy and retaining experienced judges, but opposed by some who favored age limits; it passed 5-2. The committee then took up SB 1234, which would change juvenile court representation by requiring a guardian ad litem in dependency and termination cases and allowing, rather than requiring, separate child counsel in some circumstances. Sponsor Senator Werner said the bill was part of a broader child-safety package and was informed by cases involving children who died after alleged system failures. Child welfare attorneys and advocates opposed the bill, warning it would weaken attorney-client privilege and take away children’s independent voice, while DCS said the bill was intended to clarify the GAL role and could work alongside child counsel. The committee adopted an amendment and passed the bill 5-2. SB 1661, allowing child support obligations to be terminated when genetic testing shows a presumed father is not the biological father, received broad support from the sponsor, a fathers’ advocacy group, and a family representative, and passed 6-0. Later, the committee considered election-administration and campaign-finance measures. SB 1392 would give governing bodies canvassing elections access to election-material locations to observe procedures and review records, while protecting privacy and security; county officials supported access but raised concerns about the term “agent,” and the bill passed 4-3. SB 1634 would require ADOT to provide county recorders with applicants’ handwritten signatures collected during voter registration; county officials said it would improve signature verification, and the bill passed 5-2 after some members noted amendment concerns. SB 1743 would redact donors’ employer street addresses and residence addresses from campaign finance reports; supporters framed it as a privacy measure, while opponents said employer information is important for transparency and identifying influence. It passed 5-2. SB 1099, a strike-everything amendment defining defamation standards for public and private figures, was presented as narrowing and clarifying defamation law and passed 4-3. After a recess, the committee heard SB 1535, which would make paying for sexual conduct a prostitution offense and add a $200 assessment to fund anti-human-trafficking services. Survivors, law enforcement, and neighborhood advocates supported stronger penalties aimed at buyers and demand reduction, while criminal-defense and victim-advocacy groups said the bill needed a rebuttable-presumption amendment to better protect trafficking victims. The transcript cuts off before the committee’s final action on SB 1535.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You don't need that.
• Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
• Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
• Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
• No, that's not specifically called out here. I do think that's, you know, an idea.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Natural Resources heard Senator Becker present a broad energy and affordability bill focused on shifting certain utility-related costs out of rates and into a new public power fund structure. The bill’s major elements included using cap-and-trade climate credit revenues to provide larger and better-timed customer credits, especially for low-income customers; creating a fund to help cover wildfire mitigation, care and fairness, and other public-purpose costs; adjusting rate-setting and wildfire spending oversight; and streamlining permitting and CEQA review through programmatic environmental documents for similar projects. Becker said the goal was to reduce regressive costs in rates while still supporting climate and infrastructure goals. Support came from municipal utilities, community choice advocates, environmental justice and clean energy groups, and the Climate Center, many of whom said they supported the bill and wanted to continue working on amendments. Opposition came from the California Chamber of Commerce, utility companies, business groups, and labor representatives, who argued the bill would shift rather than solve cost pressures, create rate instability, and introduce reliability and investor risks. Several opponents also criticized the proposed funding structure and the inflation-capped rate-setting approach. Committee members asked Becker about the rationale for the power fund, the change from 85% to 100% of cap-and-trade revenues going to customer credits, the reduced frequency of wildfire mitigation reporting, and the adequacy of streamlined environmental review. Becker said the bill was intended to move wildfire and other public-purpose costs out of rates over time and to speed up review without eliminating project-specific environmental analysis. The committee ultimately voted to pass the bill on a due-pass recommendation, with members noting ongoing discussions on permitting and other amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
• Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
• Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
• Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
• Will you come in and do a project?” We said, “Absolutely.” We called Dan.

Summary: The hearing was an outcome review of AB 2011, the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, focused on whether the law is being used as intended to speed housing production on commercially zoned land while maintaining labor and affordability standards. Chair Haney and Assembly Member Wicks emphasized that the point of the review was not to relitigate the bill, but to assess implementation and results. The first panel of researchers and policy experts said AB 2011 has had real but still limited uptake so far, with roughly 5,800 homes proposed, entitled, or permitted under the law through 2024, concentrated mainly in San Francisco and Los Angeles counties. They also noted that the broader housing market remains constrained by high construction costs, interest rates, and flat rents, making it hard to isolate the bill’s effects from overall market conditions. Witnesses generally agreed that AB 2011 has been most effective for 100% affordable projects and for projects already using public subsidies or prevailing wage, where the ministerial process and CEQA streamlining help move developments forward. Several speakers described the law as a useful bargaining tool that can push jurisdictions to rezone or approve projects more quickly even when AB 2011 is not formally invoked. At the same time, developers and advocates said the mixed-income pathway is much less usable in most of the state because prevailing wage and the 15% affordability requirement add significant cost, especially in lower-rent markets. They also pointed to implementation issues such as narrow site eligibility rules, the “substantially surrounded by urban uses” test, industrial-use exclusions, and confusion about whether the law applies to homeownership projects. The second panel, made up of practitioners using the law, described specific projects that moved forward under AB 2011, including affordable housing developments in the San Joaquin Valley and large mixed-use projects in San Francisco. They said the law’s biggest benefit is certainty: projects that once took years to entitle can now move in months. However, they repeated calls for changes such as clarifying homeownership eligibility, loosening density and site restrictions, narrowing the industrial-use exclusion, and making the law easier to understand for developers and local staff. Members also raised concerns about uneven use across regions, especially the relative lack of AB 2011 activity in Los Angeles and Santa Clara County, and about the accuracy and lag in annual progress report data. The final panel, including the original sponsors, said they remain supportive of the law but are open to adjustments to reduce costs and improve usability while preserving labor protections and affordability goals.

Transcript Highlights:

• In state terms, you all call this other capital outlay.
• Thank you. Senator Rodriguez. Thank you, Chair. And thank you for the question.
• Thank you. Thank you, Chancellor. Thank you, Chair. I wanted to Thank you, Chancellor.
• And so I'm going to stop there before I say something that's not going to be favorable. Thank you.
• So thank you all. And seeing no further business before the committee, Senator Bradley moves.

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Higher Education met to examine how Florida’s state universities are funded and to begin discussing a possible university funding model. The panel included the State University System chancellor and CFOs from FSU, UF, FAMU, FAU, UNF, and UCF. Members first reviewed major cost drivers, which the universities said are broadly similar across institutions: wages and benefits, equipment and supplies, financial aid, professional services, utilities, IT, and maintenance. Several institutions noted unique pressures from geography, growth, research intensity, and mission, such as UCF’s size and engineering focus, UF’s land-grant and research enterprise, FAMU’s need to recruit top talent while serving a high-Pell student population, and FSU’s large facilities and research obligations. The chancellor also summarized systemwide cost growth since 2012-13, including higher health insurance, retirement, and salary costs, while noting tuition had been held flat. The committee then discussed other revenue sources, including auxiliaries, restricted funds, capital projects, and component units such as foundations and health systems. University leaders explained that many of these funds are restricted to specific purposes, and some, like UF Health, account for a large share of operating expenses. Members also discussed the current performance-based funding process. University representatives generally praised it for transparency, accountability, and its focus on student success, but said the heavy use of one-time funds, nonrecurring appropriations, and unfunded mandates makes long-term planning difficult. FSU and others argued that rising employee costs, waivers, and facilities expenses are not fully covered, while FAMU said performance funding has improved outcomes but can disadvantage institutions serving more low-income students. In response to questions about improvements, the universities suggested more recurring and predictable funding, better coverage of mandated costs, more flexibility in fees, and continued investment in research and strategic priorities. The chancellor said the Board of Governors is considering a version 3.0 of performance funding that would benchmark institutions against peers and Carnegie classifications. The committee also explored whether universities should have more flexibility to set out-of-state tuition and professional school tuition. Most university leaders favored giving boards of trustees more authority, while the chancellor cautioned that increasing out-of-state enrollment or tuition too much could affect legislative support. No votes were taken; the meeting ended with the chair thanking the panel and adjourning the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
• I had come here multiple times before you guys and asked for various increases to our staff.
• I believe, and I mean I would encourage you to dig into it, but...
• I think dig into it. I think you'll appreciate what you see.
• And again, I think it's... yeah, I think dig into it. I think you'll appreciate what you see.

Committee: All ALC-PEER

Summary: The committee considered a series of appropriation, fund transfer, and reserve requests across multiple agencies. Section B temporary appropriations included funding for state technology upgrades, personnel management staffing and IT skills assessment, court reporters and interpreters, crime victim claims, juvenile sex offender assessments, radiation lab testing, and higher education workforce grants and credentialing pathways. Additional items covered an ARPA grant for the University of Arkansas Fort Smith LPN program, an IIJA grant for the Oil and Gas Commission’s critical minerals work, a restricted reserve transfer for State Police vehicle purchases, a transfer to the Arkansas Heroes Program, and cash fund requests for the Real Estate Commission’s AV system and HVAC work. Most of these items were approved by voice vote. One budget classification transfer request from the Commissioner of State Lands drew extended questioning and was ultimately not approved. Members questioned the $250,000 transfer to operating expenses tied to the purchase of a West Little Rock office building, the ongoing lease costs at the prior location, and whether the agency had adequately planned for building-related expenses. After discussion, the motion failed, and members told the agency to tighten spending and return if needed. The committee then took up 15 pay plan appropriation requests totaling $25.7 million and approved them after discussion with DFA, DHS, Corrections, and the State Board of Election Commissioners. Members focused heavily on DHS staffing shortages at human development centers, where officials said vacancies and turnover were driven by overtime and burnout rather than pay alone; one member asked DHS to submit a written plan to address the issue. Corrections reported the pay plan had improved hiring and retention. The committee also approved overtime appropriations for Emergency Management and Military. Reports on reserve funds, the Budget Stabilization Trust Fund, tobacco settlement, State Central Services, Education Adequacy, Medicaid Trust, IIJA, and revenue transfer activity were received. The Medicaid Trust Fund report prompted significant concern about February’s $90 million draw; DHS said the month was unusually high because of cash-flow timing and that the fund should end the year with a balance between $150 million and $200 million, while lawmakers noted a second $100 million set-aside is planned for FY27. The final discussion centered on DHS’s state hospital damage claim and reconstruction funding, where members expressed disappointment that insurance reimbursement would likely return only about $1.8 million now and possibly about $97,000 more later, far less than the roughly $5 million initially expected. DHS explained the policy was based on actual cash value and depreciation for old buildings, and said the work would proceed on Unit 3 for secured restoration because it was the most cost-effective option.

Transcript Highlights:

• And typically, I think it has been more specific, and most people, you know, before when data requests
• </c> However, you know, if if you were if you However, you know, if if you were if you were<00:21:08.480
• And you know, I spoke with you.
• </c> you. Thank you, Representative Mure. you. Thank you, Representative Mure.
• Uh, and thank you, you, Chair.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard House File 1999 informationally only, with no formal action taken. Representative Green explained that the bill addresses large and sometimes anonymous data requests made to school districts and other government entities, arguing that while public access to data is essential, some requests create significant staff and cost burdens when requesters do not follow through. She described examples from districts that spent thousands of dollars preparing data that was never inspected, and said the bill aims to add accountability while preserving open government and press access. Testifiers largely supported the bill’s goals but discussed technical changes. Matt Eling of Minnesotans for Open Government said the amendment largely codifies existing guidance on handling large requests by breaking them into components and allowing inspection or copying in stages. Superintendent Jeff Felson of Owatonna Public Schools said his district had received 12 anonymous requests in three years, nine of which were abandoned, costing about $40,000, and one large request cost more than $400,000 and required significant staff time. Rich Newmeister also supported the effort but raised concern about language referring to providing data on a “rolling basis,” suggesting training and clearer guidance for districts instead. Members asked whether school districts already set their own data-request policies, whether anonymous requests must be answered, and how the bill would affect private personnel data. Representative Green said districts do have their own policies, anonymous requests are allowed under current law, and the bill is meant to provide clearer statutory guidance. She also said she was open to removing the “rolling basis” language after feedback. The discussion ended with general support for the bill’s intent and a reminder from the chair that the hearing was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• I would refer to my good friend, Representative Hardin, for rules about pointing those guns before you
• Well, there goes the rest of my bills, and you called him out. So, Mr.
• If you are in the chamber, you are required to vote. Representative, do you care to vote?
• Thank you.
• Members wishing to vote or change their vote, chairs preparing to close, you call it.

Bills: HB1411 , HB3143 , HB3144 , HB3901 , HCR1019 , HB3981 , HB4248 , HB3194 , HB3849 , HB4095 , HB4302 , HB3342 , HB3344 , HB3287 , HB3645 , HB3647 , HB3930 , HB3931 , HB1818 , HB4454 , HB4336

Keywords: True Grit Trail, Oklahoma, tourism, signage, Department of Transportation, state parks, historical sites, economic development, medical marijuana, license transfer, Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority, moratorium, business regulation, commercial grower licenses, licensing restrictions, agriculture, psychological autopsy, mental health, suicide prevention, state health department

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
• Thank you. The House is now in session. The clerk will call the roll.
• Thank you. I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Mr. Floor Leader. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
• Thank you. Mr. Floor Leader? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
• Are you? Thank you for your question. Yes.

Bills: HB1411 , HB3143 , HB3144 , HB3901 , HCR1019 , HB3981 , HB4248 , HB3194 , HB3849 , HB4095 , HB4302 , HB3342 , HB3344 , HB3287 , HB3645 , HB3647 , HB3930 , HB3931 , HB1818 , HB4454 , HB4336

Keywords: True Grit Trail, Oklahoma, tourism, signage, Department of Transportation, state parks, historical sites, economic development, medical marijuana, license transfer, Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority, moratorium, business regulation, commercial grower licenses, licensing restrictions, agriculture, psychological autopsy, mental health, suicide prevention, state health department

Summary: The House convened, completed the roll call, prayer, and Pledge of Allegiance, and then took up several second- and third-reading items. Senate Bill 392 was assigned to Administrative Rules. Members also heard personal privileges and introductions, including a remembrance request for Oakland Ray Domer, recognition of a long-serving House staff member, and introductions of guests from Eastern Oklahoma State College, Associated Builders and Contractors of Oklahoma, the Doctor of the Day, and the Nurse of the Day. The chamber passed several measures. House Bill 1411 created a True Grit Trail for tourism, with supporters saying signage would be privately funded and installed at no cost to the state; it passed 92-0. House Bill 3143 extended the moratorium on new medical marijuana grow licensing to August 1, 2028, with supporters arguing it would help curb oversupply and black market activity; it passed 82-8. House Bill 3144, also related to medical marijuana, set a cap framework for when the moratorium ends so the industry would not return to rapid expansion; it passed 82-15. House Bill 3901 established a five-year pilot project for psychological autopsies within the State Department of Health to improve suicide prevention, but members raised concerns about privacy, rulemaking, and the bill’s breadth; it passed 73-24. House Concurrent Resolution 1019 supported naming a planned turnpike segment the Toby Keith Expressway in honor of the late singer’s music career, patriotism, charity work, and support for Oklahoma communities. House Bill 3981 created a locality incentive program for assistant district attorneys in areas of need and passed 83-11. The House then adjourned until February 26, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
• Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The House is now in session.
• Question before the House: shall the bill pass? The clerk will call the roll.
• Question before the House: shall the bill pass? The clerk will call the roll.
• The clerk will call the roll. The roll call is in progress. Thank you. Miller, aye. Archer, aye.

Bills: HB1411 , HB3143 , HB3144 , HB3901 , HCR1019 , HB3981 , HB4248 , HB3194 , HB3849 , HB4095 , HB4302 , HB3342 , HB3344 , HB3287 , HB3645 , HB3647 , HB3930 , HB3931 , HB1818 , HB4454 , HB4336

Keywords: True Grit Trail, Oklahoma, tourism, signage, Department of Transportation, state parks, historical sites, economic development, medical marijuana, license transfer, Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority, moratorium, business regulation, commercial grower licenses, licensing restrictions, agriculture, psychological autopsy, mental health, suicide prevention, state health department

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you, Mr. President. I impose a call of the Senate. The Senate is now under call.
• </c><02:38:46.240><c> Uh,</c> you requesting a roll call vote? Uh, you requesting a roll call vote?
• Thank you, Mr. before the body. Thank you, Mr.
• Are you asking for a roll call? Roll call requested. Roll call granted.
• Roll call before someone else does.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. Thank you.
• So thank you for stepping up over the weekend. of phone calls, but that was the right thing to do.
• There's an old saying that But when you're in a hole, you should stop digging.
• I call on Representative Niska to explain the motion. Thank you, Madam Speaker and members.
• Thank you. That we folded into the bill before you today.

Transcript Highlights:

• I’m going to move on to roll call, and I love Rochelle, if you could lead that. Of course.
• And so what we have before you, everyone... ...additional recommendations.
• And so what we have before you, everyone, either online or if you printed out a copy, I'm going to go
• If you're not okay with that, you can call it into question or say no.
• If you're not okay with that, you can call it into question or say no.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Cabo Verdean Cultural Center Feasibility Commission met to continue its work toward making recommendations to the Legislature on establishing a cultural center in Boston. The chair reviewed the commission’s mandate, upcoming monthly meetings, site visits, listening sessions, and the plan to eventually hire a consultant for the feasibility study. Members also discussed the importance of capturing the broader 200-plus-year Cape Verdean history in Massachusetts, especially in light of Boston’s 250th anniversary and Cabo Verde’s recent 50th independence anniversary. A major portion of the meeting focused on reviewing and narrowing a list of potential additional commissioners. Members discussed the need for geographic, sector, and generational diversity, and several commissioners raised concerns about overrepresentation from New Bedford and the need to include people connected to other Cape Verdean communities such as Brockton, Boston, Wareham/Onset, Taunton, the Cape, and Haverhill. Testimony and comments emphasized including people with skills in arts, culture, history, construction, philanthropy, law, education, museum curation, and community organizing. Members also discussed whether to use a slate, an inventory of skills and regions, or individual votes, and whether abstentions should be treated as “reserve your rights” instead. The commission voted to appoint three individuals: John Cruz, former State Senator Vinny deMacedo, and Angelo Lopes Barbosa or a designee from the Center for Cape Verdean Studies at Bridgewater State University. The body then voted to pause the remaining commissioner appointments until the next meeting and directed the chair and staff to create an inventory of candidates by skills, region, and other relevant criteria. Members also agreed to add two newly suggested names—former Brockton City Councilor Tina Cardoso and Maria Gomez-Pena—to the candidate list. The chair said the next meeting would be scheduled for January, and the meeting adjourned after the commission approved the motion to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• control before you release it.
• So I'll ask you to be back before 11. All right. Thank you. Yeah.
• I'll ask you to be back before 11. All right. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
• We'll call it back. There you go. There you go. All right, committee.
• will, before you get to go live.

Committee: Joint Artificial Intelligence and Data Center Committee

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• before you release it.
• So I'll ask you to be back before 11. All right. Thank you. Yeah.
• I'll ask you to be back before 11. All right. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
• We'll call it back. There you go. There you go. All right, committee.
• will, before you get to go live.

Summary: The committee held its first meeting on artificial intelligence and data centers, established a quorum, and heard introductory remarks from Majority Leader Hogue and the chair about the committee’s charge. Members said the goal was to build a factual foundation on AI, hear from experts and stakeholders, and develop practical North Dakota-focused recommendations rather than simply produce a large volume of bills. Legislative Council also reviewed interim committee rules and procedures before the informational presentations began. Staff and NCSL presenters then gave overviews of AI concepts and the state and federal policy landscape. The background memo and presentations covered AI categories and terms, state laws in areas such as consumer protection, algorithmic discrimination, deepfakes, chatbots, children’s safety, health, education, and government use, as well as data center siting and economic impacts. NCSL described a growing number of AI bills introduced and enacted across the states, with comprehensive laws in places like Utah, Colorado, Texas, California, and Illinois, and noted recurring issues around transparency, privacy, liability, and protections for minors. A major focus of the discussion was federal preemption and the tension between state regulation and national AI policy. NCSL said a recent White House executive order and related federal framework seek a light-touch, innovation-friendly national standard, with possible challenges to state laws and possible funding conditions tied to compliance, though no broad federal preemption has yet been enacted. Members asked about Commerce Clause concerns, industry pushback, oversight models, and whether AI policy is bipartisan; presenters said the issue cuts across party lines, with broad agreement on child safety and deepfake restrictions but more disagreement on broader regulatory approaches. No votes or formal actions were taken at the meeting, and the committee recessed briefly for technical issues during the second presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
• Senator Perez is here, and she signed in before you. So, I'm sorry. But can you please stay?
• Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. buyers.
• Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you.
• to appear before you today.

Committee: Joint Joint Legislative Audit

Summary: The committee met as a subcommittee because it initially lacked a quorum, heard a status update from State Auditor Grant Parks, and reviewed several new audit requests. Parks reported that 10 previously requested audits were underway, with most expected to be released in spring/summer and one pesticide audit still pending; he also noted ongoing litigation with Huntington Beach over a 2024 audit. He said the office had grown to just over 200 employees and could start about five new JALAC audits between April and July. The committee also noted that one Prop. 28 request was being held and one PUC-related request was moved off consent to the regular calendar. Senator Cervantes presented an audit request on California fusion centers, arguing they operate with little public oversight and may collect, share, and store sensitive information without adequate transparency or safeguards. Supporters, including former FBI agent Mike German and ACLU California Action, said fusion centers function as secretive intelligence-sharing hubs that can produce inaccurate or biased reports and may undermine privacy and civil liberties. Parks said the audit would examine the State Threat Assessment Center and two local fusion centers, focusing on oversight, legal authority, data quality, unauthorized disclosure controls, use of private vendors, funding, and performance metrics, while warning of likely access and public-disclosure limitations. The request drew sharp opposition from Assembly Member DeMaio, who called it a politicized “witch hunt,” but public comment included support from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Senator Allen then presented an audit of the Public Utilities Commission’s enforcement of Rule 21 interconnection timelines for customer-sited solar and storage projects. He and witnesses said utilities have repeatedly missed deadlines, causing long delays and added costs for schools, nonprofits, and other customers; CPUC staff responded that the commission adopted timelines and compliance benchmarks in 2020, publishes quarterly data, and is already pursuing the issue through workshops and an open proceeding. Parks said the audit would assess CPUC monitoring, enforcement tools, and reasons for utility noncompliance. Public comment was mixed, with solar advocates supporting the request and PG&E objecting on process grounds and arguing the commission’s ongoing proceeding should address the issue. Senator Perez, with Senator Fong, requested an audit of Caltrans’ administration of the former SR 710 corridor property sales and affordable housing program. They described tenant complaints about mold, pests, deferred maintenance, inconsistent pricing and eligibility information, and possible failures to inform residents of purchase rights; Caltrans said it is working to complete sales and has already closed 59 properties since fiscal year 2024-25. Parks said the audit would examine compliance with the Roberti Act, pricing, appraisals, communications, rent accounting, property maintenance, and follow-up on prior recommendations. Finally, Senator Umberg requested an audit of the Orange County Board of Education, citing transparency, litigation spending, charter authorization, procurement, and whistleblower concerns; after quorum was established, Parks said the audit would review Brown Act and Public Records Act compliance, public resource use, contracting, litigation costs, charter oversight, and retaliation complaints.

Transcript Highlights:

• Before we get to you, thanks for joining us. Appreciate having you here.
• Before we get<00:04:35.600><c> to</c><00:04:35.680><c> you,</c><00:04:35.919><c> thanks</c><00:04:36.160
• . you. you.
• Um, you know, myself, certainly before we all enjoy the state health insurance program, incredibly generous
• You can also call our office and get all that information. We also get cases from other sources.

Committee: House Commerce Finance and Policy

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Before you begin, I'd like to just say, sir, come and sit down.
• Before you begin, I'd like to just say, sir, come and sit down.
• work, members of Congress, who use many scandals, whatever you want to call it, to call attention to
• So, you know, yes, we have gone to court before.
• , you know, in public before the audit, how would you handle that?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The subcommittee hearing focused on whether the Office of the State Auditor may constitutionally audit the Massachusetts Legislature under Chapter 250 of the Acts of 2024 and what such an audit could include under generally accepted government auditing standards. Chair Cindy Friedman opened by explaining the background: voters approved Ballot Question 1 in November 2024, the law took effect in January 2025, and the Auditor then initiated audits of both chambers. The chair said the subcommittee was seeking expert testimony because the proposed audit scope, constitutionality, and possible bias concerns remained unresolved. Public testimony was invited, but no members of the public pre-registered; written testimony remained open for a short period after the hearing. The hearing then proceeded with invited experts on constitutional law/state government and auditing-related issues. Professor Lawrence Friedman testified that the ballot initiative’s approval by the Attorney General and by voters did not resolve constitutional questions, and he argued Chapter 250 violates the Massachusetts Constitution. He said the Legislature has constitutional authority to set its own rules and manage its proceedings, and that an executive-branch audit would intrude on legislative deliberation, speech and debate protections, and separation of powers. He also warned that even audits of supposedly administrative matters could become a vehicle for repeated document demands and litigation that would indirectly burden legislative functioning. In questioning, senators pressed him on the line between administrative and deliberative functions, the role of the Attorney General versus the courts, the possibility of retroactive audit scope, and whether prior legislative consent to audits mattered; he said prior consent would not bind future legislatures and that constitutionality is ultimately for the courts. Professor Ray La Raja also opposed the audit, framing it as a threat to institutional independence and representative democracy. He argued that allowing an executive-branch official to audit the Legislature without consent would upset separation of powers, chill internal debate, and create a precedent for broader executive intrusion. He said voters often support “transparency” reforms without fully appreciating institutional consequences, and that legislatures should defend their autonomy, especially amid what he described as broader executive overreach nationally. Senators asked about chilling effects, the practical distinction between administrative and core legislative functions, and whether the courts or the Legislature should resolve the issue; he said the courts would ultimately adjudicate disputes, but the Legislature should not waive its constitutional authority lightly. Jean Kempthorne took the opposite view, arguing the audit is permissible and should proceed. She said the state auditor is a constitutional officer accountable directly to the people, that the audit power can be expanded by statute, and that separation of powers does not require watertight compartments. She contended the audit would not displace core legislative powers because the auditor can only evaluate operations, report findings, and make recommendations. She also argued the Legislature itself already conducts audits of other branches, so it is inconsistent to claim an audit of the Legislature is unconstitutional. In response to senators’ questions, she said there are guardrails against truly intrusive requests, but that the administrative-versus-legislative distinction is not a workable bright line; she suggested disputes should be handled case by case, with objections, negotiation, or litigation if specific requests go too far. No votes or formal actions were taken at the hearing.