Transcript Highlights:

• Seeing no question? The board is clear.
• So an active member who has no affiliation, no prior affiliation with the retirement system, like coming
• I have no desire to undermine the chairman's bill. That is no desire of mine at all.
• I have no desire to undermine the chairman's bill. That is no desire of mine at all.
• Seeing no opposition, that amendment is adopted. You can close on your bill. You have no question.

Bills: HB17 , HB21 , HB24 , HB41 , HB42 , HB45 , HB1134 , HB1237

Committee: Senate Retirement

Transcript Highlights:

• No, I don't.
• Yes and no.
• No. Representative Moore? No. Representative Wiley? Yes. The yeas are 10 and the nays are 2.
• The yeas are 10 and the nays are 2. Thank you. No, ma’am. Oh, sorry, it is nine and three.
• No. No. Representative Leflere? No. No. The yeas are 8 and the nays are 3.

Committee: House Administration of Criminal Justice

Summary: The committee first handled housekeeping items, voluntarily deferring HB 63 and HB 622 at the authors’ requests. It then heard HB 131 on post-conviction relief, which would remove the word “inexcusably” from the PCR statute and delay bail eligibility after relief until the state’s appeals are exhausted through the Louisiana Supreme Court. The bill drew support from the Attorney General’s office and district attorneys, with opposition cards from the Southern Poverty Law Center, and it was reported favorably. HB 789, concerning seizure of off-road vehicles used unlawfully on roadways, was amended to direct forfeiture proceeds to the Attorney General when acting as district attorney ad hoc; it was then reported as amended with support from law enforcement and no opposition testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> County, and the largest portion of Blue County, and the largest portion of Blue Earth<00:02:51.440
• 2, House Article<00:18:07.360><c> 2,</c><00:18:08.240><c> and</c><00:18:09.040><c> the</c><00:18:09.680
• ><c> uh,</c><00:18:09.720><c> policy</c> Article 2, and the uh, policy Article 2, and the uh, policy
• Um Senate Section 2, House Section 3.
• /c><00:35:04.840><c> years</c> over the last 2 years over the last 2 years on<00:35:05.920><c> the</c

Summary: The Safety and Security Conference Committee met on May 13, 2026, with a quorum present and no immediate vote taken. Chairs explained the committee was working ahead of a possible target so it could act quickly later if needed, then proceeded with member introductions and a reminder about committee decorum. Staff noted a microphone delay and said the meeting would include a side-by-side walk-through of the House and Senate policy language and a review of the fiscal spreadsheet. Fiscal staff summarized major differences in court, public safety, and legislative security funding. The House and Senate proposals differed on safety and security funding for the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and District Courts, as well as on courthouse grants, capital security enhancements, and a new legislative/protective services unit. Staff also reviewed Senate-only and House-only items, including a Senate proposal to require removal of insignia from public safety vehicles sold to the public, and House provisions for a security services task force and member security costs. Total general fund impacts were reviewed, with the House total corrected to include an open appropriation that had been omitted from the spreadsheet totals. Nonpartisan staff then walked through the policy differences. The Senate language focused on a Protective Services Unit and security for principal state officials, while the House language focused on a Legislative Services Unit and security for legislators. Both bills included provisions on Capitol Complex Security, reporting requirements, and reimbursement arrangements with local law enforcement, but differed on details such as whether elected officials must provide contact information to DPS and how requests for personal protective services are handled. The House-only amendment A8 was presented for discussion; it would revise emergency contact provisions, replace the House’s personal protective services request language with a more detailed threat assessment and mitigation framework, direct implementation of the new unit, and make related reimbursement and technical changes. Judge Richard Kyle, president of the Minnesota District Judges Association, testified in support of stronger judicial and court safety measures. He described rising threats against judges, citing survey results showing high rates of judges limiting personal information, receiving inappropriate communications, changing personal behavior, and experiencing threats to themselves and family members. He said the association supports legislative authorization and funding for home security and personal data protections for judicial officers, and emphasized that safety concerns for judges and court staff have become more serious in recent years.

Transcript Highlights:

• See no questions? Do we have a motion? Do you have a second? Questions? Seeing no questions?
• So they're exhibiting up in the Rotunda until 2 p.m.
• No, no. I know for a fact that the treasurer would more than happily sit down with anyone.
• No, no. I know for the fact that the treasure would more than happily sit down with anyone.
• Senate Bill 2. This is on page one of your Senate bills. Senate Bill 2, page one. Any questions?

Committee: All JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE

Summary: The committee first heard a Special Language Committee report from Senator McKee, who reported that the subcommittee adopted nine amendments related to Governor’s Letter 7 and 30, including amendments to HB 1005 and one sponsored by Senator Dismang. The committee then adopted the report and approved several items on the special language agenda, including HB 101 (Department of Corrections), HB 1017 (Department of Agriculture promotion boards), HB 1009 (Department of Public Safety), and SB 10 (Department of Commerce, Division of Workforce Services). During discussion of SB 10, members questioned a $10 million unemployment insurance modernization item, and Commerce/DFA explained it was a continuation of existing funding rather than a new increase. The meeting then turned to the Treasurer’s budget, where members raised concerns about prior and proposed salary increases in the office, especially the size of raises for senior staff compared with lower-paid employees. Committee members repeatedly asked whether the new appropriation would be directed to the investment team rather than top administrators, and whether special language could cap raises or otherwise limit how the money could be used. The Treasurer’s representative said the office was willing to discuss caps and that no final decisions on raises had been made, but several members remained dissatisfied and emphasized the need for the Treasurer himself to appear. Representative Lundstrum moved to hold the Treasurer’s budget, and the committee approved the hold. After that, the committee referred items with special language to the special language process and then batch-approved a series of supplemental and reappropriation bills, followed by individual due-pass actions on multiple bills, including HB 1006, HB 1013, HB 1016, HB 1033, HB 1048, HB 1050, HB 1053, HB 1065, HB 1078, and several Senate bills such as SB 2, SB 14, SB 19, SB 26, SB 32, SB 42, SB 52, SB 53, and SB 74. Near the end, members discussed filing deadlines and the need to suspend rules for late special-language items, and Senator Irvin released a hold on HB 1064 before the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• I represent Blue Startups. I do Blue program operations for Blue Startups.
• supporting the blue economy.
• , uh, I do Blue uh, program operation<00:22:25.200><c> for</c><00:22:25.360><c> blue</c><00:22:25.600
• blue the blue<00:22:59.840><c> economy.
• &gt;&gt; No. &gt;&gt; No. &gt;&gt; No. &gt;&gt; All right. &gt;&gt; All right. &gt;&gt; All right.

Bills: HB1629 , HB1630 , HB1631

Committee: House Economic Development & Technology

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several bills, beginning with HB 1829 on marine affairs. Most testimony was in strong support, with speakers from state agencies, ocean-tech companies, startups, nonprofits, and community groups backing the creation of an Office of Marine Affairs and a marine affairs coordinator under HTDC. Supporters said the measure would better coordinate ocean policy, strengthen the blue economy, and help Hawaii capture jobs, investment, and innovation in marine-related industries. No vote or final action was taken in the portion provided. The committee then took up HTDC-related measures, including HB 1615 and HB 1613, which also drew broad support from business, technology, and economic development interests. Testifiers said the bills would strengthen Hawaii’s technology and innovation ecosystem, support advanced manufacturing and cybersecurity, and help build a more diversified economy with higher-wage jobs. The committee also heard HB 1607 on public procurement and HB 1772 on small business procurement; state procurement staff and several business groups supported efforts to expand opportunities for local firms, while one speaker from the city’s economic revitalization commission argued that a flat 5% preference could help keep more revenue and jobs in-state. On HB 1636 relating to shopping carts, the Hawaii Food Industry Association and Retail Merchants of Hawaii testified in opposition, saying the bill would penalize businesses for carts that are stolen rather than abandoned and would add costs that could especially burden small and local retailers. HB 1810 on charitable solicitation drew support from Goodwill Hawaii and other nonprofits, who said the bill would improve transparency around donation bins and protect donors from misleading for-profit collection practices; the Attorney General’s office asked for a delayed effective date to allow system changes and staffing. HB 1782 on AI and the protection of minors received broad support from state agencies, educators, and advocacy groups, but some business and retail representatives urged narrowing the definition of covered AI services so ordinary customer-service chatbots would not be swept in. Finally, HB 1759 on theft drew opposition from the Public Defender’s Office, which said the bill could create overly harsh penalties and should include defense representation on any task force; the office also noted existing laws already address conspiracy and related conduct.

Transcript Highlights:

• Oh, no, that's a lot.
• So because there is no Because there is no written ruling yet, there is no ability to appeal.
• No, a therapist can’t prescribe anyway. Psychiatrists would have to, but no.
• No, I wouldn't support that. No, I wouldn't support that. Okay.
• No.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on access to gender-affirming care in California, with opening remarks emphasizing the state’s legal protections, the importance of decorum, and the impact of federal actions on transgender, gender-diverse, and intersex Californians. The Department of Justice, Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC), and Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) described current state protections, including nondiscrimination rules, privacy and shield laws, Medi-Cal and commercial coverage requirements for medically necessary care, and ongoing litigation challenging federal executive orders, proposed rules, and HHS actions that could restrict care or threaten provider participation in Medicare and Medicaid. Officials also noted that California continues to oppose federal proposals through lawsuits and public comments, and that the state is preparing strategies if those proposals are finalized. Members asked about hospital closures or pauses in care, continuity of care, provider network adequacy, whether additional legislation or funding is needed, and how the state can better track access and enforce existing protections. DMHC said it monitors complaints and independent medical reviews, but does not have a specific provider category for gender-affirming care and does not collect utilization data by service type; DHCS said Medi-Cal covers medically necessary gender-affirming care and that federal proposals are not yet final. Finance staff said the previously approved $15 million allocation is still being implemented through Covered California. The second panel heard from a physician, clinic leaders, parents, and a transgender youth about how families and providers navigate access to care. Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy described the history of transgender medical care, the role of puberty blockers and hormones, and said minors need parental consent for medical interventions, while emphasizing that care should be individualized and that supportive parents improve outcomes. She also described the closure of the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles youth program and the difficulty of rebuilding care in private practice, including insurance contracting barriers and inadequate reimbursement. J.M. Jaffe of Lyon Martin Community Health Services said the clinic has expanded to serve minors after hospital programs closed, but that the shift has created major financial strain and increased demand, and asked for a $26 million state investment to stabilize transgender health services. Parents and youth described delays, cancellations, and uncertainty at Kaiser, Stanford, UCSF, and Rady Children’s, along with the emotional and medical consequences of interrupted care. One parent said TRICARE stopped covering her son’s care after federal changes and that Rady later closed its clinic; her family urged California to backfill lost access and funding. A 16-year-old trans student and other witnesses argued that California should remain a reliable source of care and that current protections are not enough without funding, provider support, and stronger enforcement.

Transcript Highlights:

• No. Mr. Chairman, you're not.
• No. Mr. Chairman, you're not.
• No, no. This, what we have done...
• Chairman, no. Okay.
• Also, Prop. 1-2-3 never existed before; there's no typical Prop. 1-2-3 extension.

Committee: House House Appropriations Committee of Reference

Summary: The Committee of Appropriations met on January 21, 2026, and first considered House Bill 2116, which would appropriate $1 million in fiscal year 2027 to the Colorado River Litigation Fund. The sponsor and Arizona Department of Water Resources both supported the bill, describing it as a backup measure to protect Arizona’s Colorado River entitlements if post-2026 negotiations among the basin states fail. Members discussed how the bill relates to the governor’s separate Colorado River Protection Fund proposal, and staff clarified the two funds serve different purposes. The committee approved HB 2116 on a 17-1 roll call vote. The committee then took up House Bill 2053, which would provide $100,000 for updated stormwater recharge mapping and expand the work beyond state trust lands to private lands. An amendment in the chair’s name was adopted to extend the coordination timeline, broaden the agencies involved, and revise language about mapped sites and appropriable surface water. The sponsor said the bill is intended to identify more places to capture stormwater for recharge rather than letting most rainfall evaporate. ADWR testified neutrally, supporting the mapping effort but raising a concern about language that could be read as requiring the department to determine whether water is appropriable, which it said is a legal question for the courts. The amended bill passed 11-7. House Bill 2148, as amended, was then heard and approved 11-7. The bill would give the legislature authority to appropriate non-custodial federal monies and set requirements for those appropriations. The chair’s amendment excluded federal research grants to universities, university employees, and the Arizona Board of Regents. The sponsor framed the bill as a transparency measure, saying the legislature should know how federal funds are being spent. No outside testimony was offered, and the committee approved the measure after debate about legislative oversight of federal funds. After the bills, the committee received a lengthy JLBC presentation comparing the executive budget with the JLBC baseline. Discussion focused on revenue forecasts, tax conformity, sports betting, lottery and tourism revenue assumptions, SNAP administrative costs and error-rate penalties, developmental disability and Access caseload growth, and K-12 enrollment and ESA spending. Members repeatedly questioned the executive budget’s use of one-time funding for ongoing costs, especially for SNAP administration and DES staffing, and expressed concern about rising supplemental needs and the lack of long-term budget capacity. No votes were taken on the presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are no jobs that come with this. There are no taxes that come with this.
• No, but thank you. Regional air quality that's produced by the EPA? No, but what caused that?
• I think they were colored in blue.
• So crude oil, yeah, there's no place to put the crude oil, there's no need to necessarily produce it.
• No bans on fracking. No bans on fracking, and offshore should be brought back.

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on California’s transportation fuels sector, especially the risk of refinery closures, fuel supply stability, and how the state should manage a long transition to cleaner transportation. Committee chairs and agency leaders said California’s fuel market is becoming more fragile as demand declines, refinery capacity shrinks faster than demand, and the state relies more on imports and a smaller number of critical pipelines. Professor Emily Grubert framed the issue as a managed transition problem in which the public already bears much of the risk and should also capture benefits from any state intervention. CARB Chair Leanne Randolph reviewed California’s climate and air-quality framework, including AB 32, the low-carbon fuel standard, clean vehicle rules, and the state’s at-berth regulation for port vessels. She said these programs are intended to reduce fossil fuel demand while protecting public health, and she noted that California remains in litigation over federal attempts to block some waivers. CEC Vice Chair Sivagunda described the administration’s market-stabilization work, saying the state is trying to preserve fuel supply and investor confidence during a “mid-transition” period. He said the CEC’s recommendations fall into three broad areas: stabilizing the existing fuel system, aligning regulatory tools such as a possible pause on the CEC’s margin cap, and planning for worker and community impacts. Department of Conservation Director Jennifer Lucasey outlined the administration’s petroleum market stabilization proposal, centered on returning California crude production to a 125 million-barrel annual stabilization target to support pipeline throughput and domestic supply. The proposal would codify the ban on hydraulic fracturing, validate Kern County’s oil and gas permitting ordinance, create a temporary CEQA exemption for new wells in existing fields paired with a two-for-one plug-and-abandon requirement, and strengthen spill prevention and pipeline safety rules. Several members questioned the CEQA exemption, tribal consultation, environmental review, and whether the proposal would adequately protect communities and workers. Mayor Steve Young of Benicia testified that a Valero refinery closure would sharply reduce city revenue and jobs, while also creating redevelopment and remediation challenges; he said the city wants a cleaner future but needs time and support to manage the economic loss. No formal vote was taken at the hearing, though CEC officials said a vote on a margin-cap pause was expected at an upcoming business meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Volume 2 at 254.
• Well, there's no cap on the income, right?
• No, there's two. There's just two providers.
• No, it's down here. Percent of no, it's here, right here.
• No, Mr.

Bills: SB2

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• You’d first take the federal credit, then there’d be no double dipping, so to speak.
• There’s a $2 million limit per producer and a $20 million statewide cap.
• I also will note that there is no repeal of the data center corporate tax handout.
• Oh, no. I have one. I skipped one: HB 2873, Rhonda.
• So there was no requirement for anyone to participate.

Transcript Highlights:

• Registration will close at 2 p.m. There are seven bills on the agenda today.
• No public testimony. Public testimony will close on House Bill 4359.
• With no other testimony, public testimony on House Bill 5381 is closed.
• On four against House Bill 2757, there is no public testimony.
• Yeah, no, thank you. That's exactly right.

Bills: HB 123 , HB5606 , HB549 , HB2757 , HB4359 , HB5381 , HB1939 , HB123

Committees: Senate Education , Senate Education K-16

Transcript Highlights:

• :03:46.639><c> no</c> no investment in prevention, no no investment in prevention, no expansion<02:03
• &gt;&gt; No. &gt;&gt; No. &gt;&gt; No.
• . no. no.
• Are there any other<02:46:55.439><c> nos?</c> other nos? other nos?
• No. No. No. &gt;&gt; No<02:51:06.160><c> votes.</c> &gt;&gt; No votes. &gt;&gt; No votes.

Committee: House Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 1790 HD1, which would require law enforcement and oversight agencies to collect and report data on stops, use of force, and complaints to the Hawaii Crime Lab, which would publish incident-level information and annual reports. Supporters, including the Office of the Public Defender, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the ACLU of Hawaii, Hawaii Justice Rising, and the Policing Project, said the bill would improve transparency, help identify disparities, and support better policy and accountability. OHA requested amendments to ensure Hawaiians are identified as a distinct category in the data, and the University of Hawaii’s Ashley Rubin said the Crime Lab would work with agencies to make implementation as seamless as possible. The Department of Law Enforcement supported the bill’s intent but asked for a longer timeline and culturally appropriate methodology, while HPD opposed the bill as written, saying it would require too many new data points, create a significant administrative burden, and rely on subjective perceptions of race and ethnicity; HPD also noted it is piloting an e-citation system that could help with data collection. Committee members questioned HPD about current manual processes and technology options. The chair reported 18 testimonies total: 15 in support, one in opposition, and two with comments, and no vote was taken in the excerpt. The committee then heard HB 1611 HD1, which would phase down the general excise tax on groceries and nonprescription drugs until a full exemption takes effect in 2034. The Department of Taxation offered technical recommendations, including clearer definitions for groceries and nonprescription drugs and a technical change regarding the county surcharge exemption. Supporters, including the Hawaii Public Health Institute and the Hawaii Food Industry Association, argued the GET on groceries is regressive and worsens food insecurity, especially for low-income households, and said the bill would provide needed relief. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii offered technical concerns, including a possible wholesale-tax enforcement issue once the exemption is fully phased in. The excerpt ends during testimony on HB 1611, with no final committee action shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• No questions? Terrific. Thank you very much. No questions. Terrific.
• I just noticed that there was no cost to the students. There was no cost to anyone.
• Let’s move on to tab 2. We’re going to go back to tab 2.
• If there's no further questions... no questions? Wonderful. Excellent presentation.
• If there's no further questions, no questions, wonderful, excellent presentation.

Committee: Senate Appropriations Committee on Higher Education

Summary: The committee held its first meeting of the session and received an overview of the Higher Education Appropriations budget from staff director Tim Elwell. He explained the committee’s broad jurisdiction over universities, state colleges, district workforce programs, vocational rehabilitation, blind services, student financial aid, private colleges, and the Board of Governors, and reviewed key budget concepts such as local funds, funds per FTE, performance funding, and the distinction between the total appropriation and the recurring base budget. He noted that higher education is funded largely through state and local sources, with substantial flexibility compared with other state budgets, and that the base budget is heavily weighted toward lump-sum allocations to the public systems. The committee then heard a presentation from the University of South Florida’s Florida Center for Cybersecurity (Cyber Florida), led by retired Marine Gen. Frank McKenzie and USF representative Mark Walsh. They described Cyber Florida as a statewide cybersecurity platform created by the Legislature in 2014 to support education, research, workforce development, public policy, and community engagement. McKenzie emphasized the growing cyber threat environment, Florida’s leadership role, and several funded initiatives, including K-12 outreach, workforce training, a cyber range for county governments, critical infrastructure assessments, grant development, and public conferences and outreach. Members asked about public cyber awareness, the lack of a national cyber defense strategy, school district participation in Cyber Launch, and which counties are most at risk; McKenzie said smaller counties with limited cybersecurity staffing are generally more vulnerable and offered to provide follow-up information. Finally, the committee heard from the Florida Center for Students with Unique Abilities at the University of Central Florida, led by Dr. Drew Andrews, along with program and parent representatives from participating institutions. Andrews explained the center’s role in coordinating Florida’s postsecondary comprehensive transition programs for students with intellectual disabilities, supporting program development, distributing grants and scholarships, and monitoring outcomes. He reported that the state now has 33 approved programs at 35 institutions, including universities, state colleges, and technical colleges, and that scholarship and grant funding has grown significantly. He said student retention is about 88 percent, many graduates are employed, and median hourly earnings have increased over time. A representative from Southeastern University described how the center’s support helped build and sustain SEU Link, including a new third-year employment-focused option for students.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:04:04.319><c> You</c> Oh, no. No. Okay. You have it here. You Oh, no. No. Okay.
• There's no revenue. No, there used to be revenue.
• &gt;&gt; There's no revenue. No. So &gt;&gt; There's no revenue. No.
• &gt;&gt; No. &gt;&gt; No. &gt;&gt; No.
• </c> system with no data. system with no data.

Summary: The meeting began with approval of partial minutes, with members noting that DHS/HHS material was not yet included and that the minutes would be finalized later. The committee then heard from the General Court about several dedicated funds. Testimony explained the Joint Legislative Historical Fund, which receives a $25,000 annual general fund appropriation and transfers from visitor center sales above a $50,000 threshold, and is used for portrait maintenance, chamber work, Hall of Flags upkeep, and other historical preservation needs. Members also discussed the preservation of the Civil War flags in the Hall of Flags, with the General Court stating the flags are monitored through annual high-definition photos and that no immediate stabilization project is planned. A question about Union cemeteries was raised but the witness said he had no knowledge of federal funding for them. The committee also reviewed the visitor center revolving fund and noted that the accounting presentation is confusing because transfers are netted out so the fund ends each year at $50,000. Members suggested the narrative should clearly identify the transfer amounts and actual revenue, and staff agreed to note that in future reporting. The General Court then described its special legislative account as a stability reserve for capital and emergency needs, citing past uses such as the plaza ADA renovation, the legislative parking garage, and moving operations to One Granite Place. Members asked about interest earnings and were told the account is held in the treasury and any interest goes to the general fund unless statute directs otherwise; no additional funding was recommended at this time. The Department of Administrative Services then presented the law enforcement memorial fund, explaining it is a long-standing leftover construction fund with a small balance that has not been needed because the New Hampshire Law Enforcement Memorial Officers Association privately funds memorial upkeep and plaques. Members discussed whether the state should transfer the remaining money to the nonprofit, but no decision was made; the department said it would research whether such a transfer is legally possible. The department also reviewed the former land conservation endowment fund, now moving to Fish and Game under House Bill 2, and explained that it primarily covers administrative costs, management fees, and investment losses for a long-term conservation program. Members asked about the fund’s large balance and the increase in expenses, and were told the fund is intended to last indefinitely and that future reporting will shift to Fish and Game.

Transcript Highlights:

• Figured there was no need to have those definitions without any other references.
• we have, and is that no longer going to exist if we take this out?
• No, it'll still exist.
• But no, it's still prescribed in statute. Representative Harris, no, it'll still exist.
• But no, it's still prescribed in statute. Thank you, Mr. Floyd.

Committee: House Transportation and Defense

Transcript Highlights:

• Oh, no, wear it out. You don't have to worry about that.
• No, thank you.
• No synagogue should be vandalized. No Jew should be subject to an anti-Semitic remark.
• We don't want no Zionists here.'
• My name is Miriam Blue.

Summary: The Special Commission on Anti-Semitism met for its 11th meeting and approved the minutes from its August 7 meeting. Co-chairs said the commission had recently completed preliminary K-12 recommendations and would continue work on higher education, with additional topics such as workplace issues, the medical sector, and the arts to be addressed before the November 30 reporting deadline. They also said another public comment meeting would be held this fall. The first testimony came from Dr. Mark Posnansky of Harvard Medical School, who described anti-Semitism affecting STEM, research, and higher education. He said Jewish and Israeli students and faculty reported ostracism, gaslighting, intimidation, discrimination, and hiding Jewish identity, and he urged clear leadership statements, mandatory anti-Semitism education, and stronger reporting and discipline procedures. Commissioners asked about Harvard training, spillover into teaching hospitals, and whether anti-Semitic climates were causing students to leave; he said some students had turned down opportunities because of the environment and that concerns also affected healthcare settings. Lindsey Gabbo, a Harvard Law student and mother, testified that campus discourse after October 7 had made Jewish and Zionist students feel isolated and unwelcome, with protests, defaced hostage posters, and a student council BDS vote contributing to the climate. She said Harvard had sent some emails acknowledging anti-Semitism but that she had not seen meaningful steps to restore dialogue, and she argued the school needed more structured venues for conversation. Commissioners also asked about campus security, the effect on students’ mental health, and the impact of chants and protests that she said many Jewish students understood as calls to violence. A panel of concerned Jewish faculty and staff then offered contrasting views. Professor Jeremy Menchick argued the commission should use data carefully, include non-Zionist Jews in its analysis, and avoid reinforcing divisions within the Jewish community. Professor Hilary Lustick described restorative-practice approaches and said structured dialogue could address conflict without immediate punishment. Professor Jonathan Feingold warned that anti-Semitism was being weaponized by the Trump administration and right-wing groups to attack universities and DEI, and he urged the commission not to adopt approaches that could be used to undermine civil rights institutions. Commissioners pushed back on claims that the problem was being exaggerated or reduced to a “problem” rather than a “crisis,” and the discussion ended with continued debate over data, context, and how to balance anti-Semitism concerns with broader civil-rights protections.

Transcript Highlights:

• Good morning, Pam Price with Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield.
• No, I do not.
• no harm?
• There's no deception. There's no false information. There's no product deception going on.
• There's no deception. There's no false information. There's no product deception going on.

Summary: The committee heard several bills, but much of the meeting focused on House Bill 306, which would require disclosure when a consumer is interacting with a chatbot rather than a human. Sponsor Senator Townsend described it as a consumer protection measure and said the bill is meant to keep pace with rapidly changing AI technology. Committee members and witnesses raised concerns about the bill’s enforcement structure, especially private rights of action and penalties that could apply even without actual consumer harm. The Department of Justice said the bill would apply where the conduct has a Delaware nexus, and that the disclosure requirement is the key consumer protection. Industry witnesses and chambers of commerce opposed the bill as drafted, arguing it would create broad compliance burdens and expose businesses to excessive litigation risk without a harm requirement or clearer safe harbor language. Earlier in the meeting, the committee discussed House Bill 429, which would update Delaware’s step therapy exception process to include biosimilars and interchangeable biologics. Senator Poore and supporters from Highmark and the Department of Insurance said the bill would modernize insurance law, improve access to effective treatments, and reduce costs; they cited national savings from biosimilars and said the bill has agency support. Members asked about Delaware-specific savings, patient switching, and how the process would work, but no vote was taken during the discussion. The committee also heard House Bill 310, which would exclude large data centers from Blue Collar Jobs Act tax credits; the sponsor said the bill is intended to ensure large energy users contribute more to state and local revenues, while supporters and opponents debated competitiveness and community impacts. House Bill 406, on allowing insureds to choose their auto repair shop, and Senate Bill 347, a cleanup bill related to medical debt collection and personal property levies, were also presented without opposition in the hearing. House Bill 253, concerning who may receive letters testamentary or of administration, was described as a cleanup to align statute with existing practice. The committee approved the meeting minutes, but the transcript does not show final votes on the bills discussed.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> &gt;&gt; Uh no I do not have any testifiers. &gt;&gt; Uh no I do not have any testifiers.
• </c><00:26:00.320><c> None</c> a no. Is the person over 18 or not? None a no.
• ><c> advanced,</c><01:09:29.679><c> lack</c> systems, no matter how advanced, lack systems, no matter
• Cross Blue Shielded includes Blue Cross Blue Shielded Minnesota<01:21:03.120><c> Health</c><01:21:03.440
• No guardrails, no stopgaps.

Bills: HF357 , HF3389 , HF1434 , HF2500 , HF1606

Committee: House Commerce Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• That's 2 and a we have 3.5 uh today.
• Oh no, I've been here a while.
• </c> "Yeah, like it was no big deal." "Yeah, like it was no big deal."
• </c><01:47:58.480><c> one's</c> together at bus stops and no one's together at bus stops and no one's
• </c> states red, purple and blue pass these. states red, purple and blue pass these.

Committee: Senate Education Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• All those opposed say no. In favor say aye. All those opposed say no. The ayes have it.
• Because no parent or school would suggest to a child that anorexia is a good one. ...because no parent
• I rise in support of AB 2 as well.
• I urge your no vote.
• I urge your no vote.

Summary: The Assembly met in session, established a quorum, and opened with an Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month ceremony. Members adopted House Resolution 35 recognizing May as AAPI Heritage Month, with extensive floor remarks from caucus leaders and members highlighting AAPI history, contributions, and solidarity with other communities. The chamber then honored 14 AAPI honorees from across the state, including public servants, advocates, artists, health professionals, and community leaders, before moving to the regular file. On the floor, the Assembly passed a series of bills on social media harms to minors, labor privilege, foster care family-finding, low-impact camping areas, student body association governance, drink-spiking prevention at music festivals, behavioral health access, greenhouse gas recapture, physical therapy access, housing enforcement, insurance licensing, density bonus clarification, water district proxy voting, park district updates, secured transactions, and property tax relief during emergencies. Most measures passed with broad or unanimous support; notable votes included AB 2 on social media platform accountability passing 59-0, AB 1109 on union communications privilege passing 45-4, AB 409 on student body association open meetings passing 55-6, AB 518 on low-impact camping passing 55-0, AB 668 on drink-spiking protections passing 72-0, AB 348 on behavioral health access passing 69-0, AB 663 on HFC recapture passing 71-0, AB 574 on physical therapy access passing 68-0, AB 712 on housing enforcement passing 57-1, AB 943 on insurance pre-licensing reform passing 63-0, AB 87 on density bonus law clarification passing 63-0, AB 523 on Metropolitan Water District proxy voting passing 62-1, AB 769 on park district code cleanup passing 68-0, AB 771 on secured transactions passing 69-0, and AB 1416 on property tax installment deferrals passing 66-0. The Assembly also took up AB 446, the Surveillance Pricing Protection Act, which would prohibit businesses from using personal data to charge different prices for the same product or service. Supporters described the practice as predatory and discriminatory, while noting ongoing concerns about preserving legitimate discounts and loyalty programs. The bill was presented as a consumer protection measure aimed at preventing hidden price discrimination and reducing cost-of-living pressures. The transcript ends amid repeated and partially duplicated readings of AB 446, without a final vote shown for that item.