Transcript Highlights:

• specifically also prohibits practices that we know harm residents, including interference with clinical judgment
• 15.040> clinical including interference with clinical including interference with clinical judgment
• ,<02:08:16.000> self-deing<02:08:16.639> and<02:08:16.800> asset judgment, self-deing
• and asset judgment, self-deing and asset stripping,<02:08:18.239> unequal<02:08:18.719> treatment

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It applies prospectively to cases in which the judgment or dismissal order of the Intermediate Court
• 02:45:30.720> the prospectively to cases in which the prospectively to cases in which the judgment
• 31.680> dismissal<02:45:32.240> order<02:45:32.479> of<02:45:32.640> the judgment
• or dismissal order of the judgment or dismissal order of the intermediate<02:45:33.279> court

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs recessed briefly for a joint hearing, then reconvened and took up House Bill 2494, which would limit warrantless arrests for petty misdemeanors and violations, require officers to document arrest justification, expand citation-in-lieu-of-arrest use, and direct the Judiciary to create a standardized citation form. The chair also outlined hearing procedures and testimony time limits. Committee members later received an overview from the Policing Project about national trends in expanding citation use. Testimony was divided. Supporters, including the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission, the Office of the Public Defender, the ACLU of Hawaii, the Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii, and the Policing Project, argued the bill would reduce unnecessary arrests and pretrial detention, lessen jail overcrowding, save law enforcement time, and reduce harms such as job loss, housing instability, family disruption, and recidivism. They also said the bill preserves officer discretion through public-safety and flight-risk exceptions, and several supporters urged the committee to adopt a standardized citation form despite the Judiciary’s request for a delayed implementation date. Opposition came from the Department of the Attorney General, the Judiciary, county prosecutors, Honolulu Police Department, and other individuals. They argued the bill would unduly restrict law enforcement discretion, create administrative and data-processing problems, and make it harder to identify repeat or habitual offenders because of changes to citation information and fingerprinting. The Judiciary requested implementation no earlier than January 1, 2028 and said the citation form would need major changes. Opponents also warned the bill could increase litigation, suppress evidence, and not meaningfully reduce overcrowding because most jail populations are held on felony matters. The chair reported 14 testimonies in support, 21 in opposition, and one with comments; no vote or final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So it's a judgment, I suppose, and whether it's being considered at the time of the vote or whether it's
• So,<03:25:15.680> it's<03:25:15.920> a<03:25:16.560> your<03:25:16.960> judgment
• c><03:25:17.359> I<03:25:17.600> suppose,<03:25:18.000> and So, it's a your judgment
• , I suppose, and So, it's a your judgment, I suppose, and whether<03:25:18.479> it's<03:25:18.800

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And then kind of make a judgment call.
• kind<00:46:44.560> of<00:46:44.720> make<00:46:44.800> a<00:46:44.960> judgment
• and then kind of make a judgment call. and then kind of make a judgment call.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• essentially, there isn't a limitation in the bill, and if it was passed, we would be relying on the judgment
• be<00:28:23.200> relying<00:28:23.600> on<00:28:23.840> the<00:28:24.080> judgment
• <00:28:24.480> of<00:28:24.720> the be relying on the judgment of the be relying on
• the judgment of the governor<00:28:25.279> and<00:28:25.520> council<00:28:26.640>

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• As we discussed, I think the way we had it was better, but we'll go with your judgment.
• /c><00:48:18.319> go<00:48:18.480> with<00:48:18.640> your<00:48:19.040> judgment
• I we'll go with your judgment. I we'll go with your judgment.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee of conference on HB 1 and HB 2 met to review revenue estimates and begin working through a side-by-side of the budget. New Hampshire Lottery Director Charlie McIntyre testified that lottery revenues are outperforming prior estimates, projecting a $27 million return to the state this year, up $7 million, and $200 million per year in the next biennium, up $6.5 million per year. He attributed the increase to stronger scratch ticket sales, no negative impact from Massachusetts sports betting, and overall better performance. Members questioned the assumptions behind the higher numbers, including the proposed $50 scratch tickets, the effect of inflation, and whether the projections were conservative enough. McIntyre said the $50 ticket could produce modest growth and that the estimates were intentionally cautious. The discussion also covered gaming revenue assumptions for historical horse racing and video lottery terminals, with McIntyre saying the state market is not yet saturated and that future conversions from HHR to VLTs should be net positive for the state. Members also discussed differences between House and Senate revenue numbers for gaming, including machine counts, daily revenue assumptions, and the tax split. The Senate version used higher machine counts and a 31.25% tax rate, with a quarter-point reserved for responsible gaming and the remainder split between charities and the state. The House had used a 30% rate with a different distribution. McIntyre and committee members also reviewed House Bill 2 items affecting Kino hours and local option games of chance, with McIntyre explaining that the bill would expand playing hours and shift towns to an opt-out model. No votes were taken during the lottery discussion, but the committee indicated it would continue refining the revenue model and circulate the spreadsheet used for the estimates. The committee then moved through the HB 1 detail change sheet, accepting several Senate positions and holding others for later. It agreed to a zero-cost realignment in the Department of Safety moving the international fuel tax agreement function from administration to motor vehicles, and it restored eight passenger motor vehicle inspection positions for later discussion in HB 2. The Department of Corrections reorganization was set aside for a later, more detailed discussion. The committee also accepted no-change positions for the Department of Employment Security and agreed to a technical footnote fix in the Judicial Council section. It discussed a new HB 2 item moving contract counsel for involuntary mental health admissions from the judicial branch to the Judicial Council, funded at $100,000 per year, and noted that the public defender funding issue would be revisited when the overall budget picture is clearer. The meeting ended with the committee continuing its review of the remaining pages of the detail change sheet.

Transcript Highlights:

• decisions without our understanding, you know, how they're making those decisions or what value judgments
• making those decisions or<04:24:57.279> what<04:24:57.439> value<04:24:57.760> judgments
• or what value judgments they're making. or what value judgments they're making.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up SB 209, which would require schools seeking building aid for construction or reconstruction projects to use an owner’s project manager. The chair explained an amendment that would remove the bill’s requirement that the manager be engaged before application and instead revert to current law, while updating the project threshold from the older $1 million figure to a more current amount and clarifying that the manager’s role is to protect the project owner’s interests. Members asked about the cost of hiring a project manager over several years before a project is funded, the 1.5% fee in rule, and whether the rules already define the manager’s duties. The chair said the amendment addressed those concerns by leaving the timing to current law and relying on existing administrative rules for qualifications and responsibilities. The committee then voted 18-0 to adopt the amendment and 18-0 to recommend SB 209 OTPA, placing it on the consent calendar. The committee then moved to SB 99, which concerns allowing students enrolled in career and technical education programs at receiving comprehensive high schools to take additional academic courses there. The chair said the bill was intended to make it easier for students to access CTE without being blocked by scheduling conflicts in their sending schools, and to clarify how agreements between sending and receiving districts would work. He described concerns about the bill’s cost formula, transportation, part-time versus full-time status, and whether the proposal could unintentionally create open-enrollment or athletic-transfer issues. He said the amendment would mirror existing treatment for homeschool and charter school students, use a familiar funding model, and limit participation to students already enrolled in one or more CTE classes at the receiving school. The chair also emphasized that comprehensive high schools already have a statutory definition and that the bill would help more students participate in CTE, which he said currently reaches only a relatively small share of students statewide. He noted that transportation would be covered only when a CTE bus is available, otherwise students would be responsible for arranging travel as under current practice. After brief discussion, the committee voted 18-0 to adopt the amendment and 18-0 to recommend SB 99 OTPA, also placing it on the consent calendar.

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, I'm asking you to vote no because it's my judgment as the chief author of the bill and the chair
• This is my judgment, Mr. President, about the best way to get that done.
• This is my judgment, Mr. President, about the best way to get that done.
• This is my judgment, Mr. President, about the best way to get that done.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They will give some judgment.
• ><00:18:36.160> will<00:18:36.400> give<00:18:36.640> some<00:18:36.880> judgment
• They will give some judgment. I it less. They will give some judgment.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The meeting was a House budget briefing focused on the overall state budget and the first of three divisions. The presenter reviewed the size and structure of the budget, noting that the state had eliminated the interest and dividends tax and still balanced the budget. He explained the major spending categories in the general fund and total budget, emphasizing that health and human services and education remain the largest areas, while transportation is largely self-funded. He also walked through the revenue picture, including business taxes, insurance taxes, court fees, communications taxes, and Medicaid recoveries, and said the remaining interest and dividends tax revenue reflected late payments from prior assessments. Members asked about the size of the tax cut from eliminating the interest and dividends tax, federal funding stability, and why Medicaid was being reduced if federal support was expected to remain steady. The response was that the lost revenue would have been about $200 million absent repeal, and that the budget gap was addressed through many small cuts across departments. On federal funds, the presenter said most aid is tied to multi-year grants and that core programs such as Medicare and Medicaid were expected to remain relatively stable, though some federal reductions could occur. He also said some agency reductions came from eliminating long-vacant, funded positions and from expected lapses. The discussion then moved into Division One, which covers smaller and miscellaneous agencies. The division made cuts to the governor’s office, eliminated a temporary position at the Governor’s Commission on Disability, reduced Department of Information Technology spending through a back-of-budget cut, and found savings in Administrative Services. It also delayed maintenance at the Sununu Youth Services Center, stopped advertising for paid family medical leave, changed retiree health insurance funding, and consolidated several personnel-related boards into one. The division eliminated the Commission on Aging and the Office of the Child Advocate, made a temporary special education advocate position permanent, reduced the Secretary of State’s budget, kept municipal rooms-and-meals distributions flat, and made changes to the retirement system, including $55 million to improve Group 2 retirement benefits and a new retirement structure for future state hires. The judicial branch was also asked to find savings and received two additional judges because of expected caseload increases from other eliminations.

Transcript Highlights:

• They make good judgment calls. Um, and they drive responsibly.
• .<01:25:15.760> They<01:25:16.000> make<01:25:16.159> good<01:25:16.400> judgment
• They make good judgment regulations.
• They make good judgment calls.<01:25:17.760> Um,<01:25:18.239> and<01:25:18.480> they

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Then basically we are going to be relying upon local law enforcement agencies to make the judgment call
• make<03:18:07.199> the enforcement agencies to make the enforcement agencies to make the Judgment
• c> whether<03:18:09.199> they<03:18:09.399> consider<03:18:09.840> that Judgment
• call whether they consider that Judgment call whether they consider that the<03:18:10.840> equipment

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Relent, O God, from the judgment we are due. Accept our contrition. We rend our hearts.
• steadfast love relent oh God<02:05:50.800> from<02:05:50.960> the<02:05:51.119> judgment
• we<02:05:51.800> are<02:05:52.320> due<02:05:53.320> accept God from the judgment
• we are due accept God from the judgment we are due accept our our our Contrition<02:05:55.800> we

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Wednesday, March 5, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Constitution requires states to honor the laws and judgments of other states.
• requires states to honor the<01:29:49.159> laws<01:29:49.560> and<01:29:49.719> judgments
• <01:29:50.199> of<01:29:50.400> other<01:29:50.600> states the laws and judgments
• of other states the laws and judgments of other states if<01:29:51.560> another<01:29:51.800>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee opened a public hearing on HB 402, a bill dealing with whether Education Freedom Account (EFA) payments should be described in state law as not constituting taxable income. The bill sponsor argued that the current statute is misleading because New Hampshire should not imply a federal tax result, and said the bill would remove that language and could also be amended to clarify that families should consult tax advisors. He emphasized that the measure was not intended to impose a state tax on EFAs, but to avoid giving inaccurate advice about possible federal tax liability. Testimony was divided. A retired representative and a tax preparer both opposed the bill, saying EFA payments are already treated consistently with IRS rules and that the bill would create confusion, administrative burden, and possible tax consequences for low- and moderate-income families. They argued the bill is a solution in search of a problem and warned that requiring 1099s could add costs for the scholarship organization and recipients. A tax attorney supported the bill’s repeal of the state language, saying New Hampshire should not put tax advice into statute and that the current wording is inaccurate because federal law, not state law, controls taxability. He cited IRS Section 117 and Publication 970, explaining that only some scholarship-like payments are tax-free and that many EFA-eligible expenses may not qualify for federal exemption. Members asked questions about what would be misleading, whether the bill was trying to tax EFAs, and the cost of issuing 1099s. The sponsor and witnesses repeatedly said the bill was not a state tax on voucher payments, but a clarification about federal tax treatment. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Constitution requires states to honor the laws and judgments of other states.
• requires states to honor the<01:29:49.159> laws<01:29:49.560> and<01:29:49.719> judgments
• <01:29:50.199> of<01:29:50.400> other<01:29:50.600> states the laws and judgments
• of other states the laws and judgments of other states if<01:29:51.560> another<01:29:51.800>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on HB 402, a bill to repeal a provision in RSA 194-F:2 stating that Education Freedom Account (EFA) funds “shall not constitute taxable income” to the parent or student. The bill sponsor argued the current language is misleading because the state cannot determine federal tax liability, and said the bill would simply remove inaccurate tax advice from state law. He cited IRS guidance and prior federal legislation, including a Ted Cruz proposal, to suggest some EFA uses may be taxable under federal law, while others may not, and said the bill could be amended if needed to avoid confusion. Testimony was sharply divided. Py Campbell opposed the bill, arguing it would unfairly single out EFA students and could amount to a tax on education funds, including for self-employed families, and recommended it be voted inexpedient to legislate. Stephen Matthew French, a tax preparer, also opposed the bill, saying IRS Publication 970 already makes clear that scholarship-type payments used for tuition and related expenses are not taxable, and that the bill addresses a problem that does not exist. He warned that adding tax reporting requirements could create administrative costs for families and the program administrator. Bill Ardinger, a tax attorney, supported the repeal of the statutory language, saying the state should not place potentially incorrect tax advice into law. He explained that under federal tax law, only certain scholarship-like uses are exempt, while many EFA-eligible expenses may not be, especially for families using the program for homeschooling or other nontraditional expenses. He said the current statute could mislead families into thinking all EFA payments are tax-free and could expose the state to future legal problems. The hearing ended after questions from committee members; no vote or final action was taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• She was non-judgmental.
• see what a wonderful speaker she was she see what a wonderful speaker she was she was was was non-judgmental
• > she<01:10:42.840> understood<01:10:43.679> that<01:10:44.679> if non-judgmental
• she understood that if non-judgmental she understood that if people<01:10:45.120> are<01:10:45.280

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• How are—could you give me your judgment as to the effectiveness of those as a deterrent?
• <03:38:35.000> relying<03:38:35.640> on<03:38:36.279> your<03:38:36.520> judgment
• <03:38:36.920> on<03:38:37.080> how so we're relying on your judgment on how so we're
• relying on your judgment on how to<03:38:37.359> improve<03:38:37.680> the<03:38:37.800

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, certainly that requires resources, and if it's the judgment of this committee in the legislature
• <01:29:08.719> if<01:29:08.840> it's<01:29:09.000> the<01:29:09.159> Judgment
• <01:29:09.480> of resources and if it's the Judgment of resources and if it's the Judgment

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I rise to speak, however, in opposition to H.R. 2913, the Ukraine Support Act, and explain in my judgment
• sad that I'm here because no one has been a more steadfast supporter of Ukraine than I have in my judgment
• Ukraine Support Act, and explain<08:31:48.398> in<08:31:48.638> my<08:31:48.878> judgment
• the<08:31:49.840> flaws<08:31:50.240> in<08:31:50.478> this explain in my judgment
• the flaws in this explain in my judgment the flaws in this bill,<08:31:51.600> and<08:31:51.840

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Thursday, June 4, 2026, 1012, house, all

Bills: HR179, HR180, HR181, HR182, HR183, HR184, HR185, HR186, HR187, HCR75, HCR76, HCR77, HCR78, HCR79, HR165, HR166, HR168, HR169, HR170, HR171, HR172, HR173, HR174, HR175, HR176, HR177, HR178, HCR65, HCR66, HCR67, HCR68, HCR69, HCR70, HCR71, HCR72, HCR73, HCR74, SCR34, SB34, SB43, SB52, SB56, SB165, SB173, SB189, SB190, SB260, SB322, SB345, SB374, SB387, SB401, SB448, SB449, SB455, SB487, SB496, SB502, SB505, HB362, HB893, HB990, HB1007, HB1153, HB1243, HR1, HR17, HCR5, HCR4, HCR47, HB55, HB385, HB394, HB396, HB406, HB608, HB622, HB676, HB772, HB897, HB1030, HB1035, HB1038, HB1045, HB1049, HB1056, HB1058, HB1059, HB1092, HB1100, HB1117, HB1160, HB1161, HB1162, HB1177, HB1180, HB1189, HB1216, HB1239, HB1240, HB59, HB74, HB159, HB330, HB364, HB414, HB458, HB525, HB568, HB786, HB1008, HB1033, HB1034, HB1041, HB1062, HB1070, HB1079, HB1112, HB1118, HB1139, HB1151, HB1176, HB1182, HB1196, HB1214, HB1241, HB87, HB115, HB162, HB368, HB433, HB441, HB447, HB466, HB481, HB741, HB1242, SB162, SB349, SB350, SB382, SB383, SB127, SB244, HB977, HB181, HB31, HB664, HB9, HB192, HB225, HB306, HB310, HB366, HB635, HB911, HB1230, HB1236, HB615, HB864, HB1103, HB1175, HB901, HR20, HR74, HB284, HB393, HB459, HB577, HB582, HB605, HB614, HB682, HB733, HB773, HB996, HB1003, HB1082, HB1113, HB1234

Keywords: neighborhood, crime prevention, security districts, law enforcement, community safety, funding, Counseling Day, mental health, Louisiana Counseling Association, community support, mental wellness, Louisiana State University, athletics, NAIA, sports achievements, recognition, success, competition, education, higher education

Bills: SCR22, SB53, SB204, SB266, SB268, SB291, SB292, SB296, SB304, SB305, SB413, SB447, SB455, SB462, SB493, SB504, SB519, SB522, SB532, SB541, SB667, SB670, SB673, SB681, SB687, SB711, SB746, SB765, SB783, SB827, SB850, SB860, SB888, SB897, SB901, SB927, SB955, SB963, SB984, SB989, SB993, SB996, SB1023, SB1033, SB1058, SB1062, SB1101, SB1119, SB1172, SB1173, SB1215, SB1220, SB1227, SB1228, SB1229, SB1238, SB1239, SB1245, SB1248, SB1254, SB1259, SB1273, SB1277, SB1302, SB1332, SB1341, SB1346, SB1350, SB1352, SB1353, SB1355, SB1358, SB1370, SB1371, SB1378, SB1403, SB1404, SB1415, SB1437, SB1448, SB1450, SB1464, SB1493, SB1494, SB1537, SB1566, SB1569, SB1589, SB1598, SB1644, SB1709, SB1719, SB1729, SB1733, SB1744, SB1772, SB1810, SB1841, SB1895, SB1930, SB2039, SB2289, SB2312, SCR1, SCR6, SCR27, SCR32, SB2232

Keywords: SCR 22, Senate Concurrent Resolution 22, official state gun, state symbol, cannon, artillery, Texas Revolution, Battle of Gonzales, Come and Take It, Alamo, San Jacinto, Twin Sisters, Sam Houston, Angelina Eberly, Texas history, historic weapon, commemorative resolution, state emblem, Texas heritage, Gonzales Memorial Museum