Transcript Highlights:

• I see no one here will close public testimony.
• At this time we'll open public testimony. Uh, we have several cards.
• Thank you all for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Uh, if not, public testimony will be closed.

Transcript Highlights:

• And please begin your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• Please state your name and begin your testimony.
• Please state your name and begin your testimony.
• Are there any other testimonies?
• Are there any other testimonies?

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:18:44.400> into thank you for taking our testimony into thank you for taking our testimony
• Thank you for taking my testimony.
• . testimony. testimony.
• saw testimony saw testimony uh<06:00:16.638> about<06:00:17.200> uh<06:00:17.520><
• Uh but um during testimony exactly.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Walker, for your testimony.
• Cohen's testimony—just heartbreaking, gut-wrenching testimony this morning.
• I appreciate your testimony. Mr.
• Invited testimony is closed.
• We had some of the most riveting testimony.

Bills: HB4806

Keywords: civil action, damages, health care services, noneconomic damages, negligence, legal standards, 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Why don't we get to the witness testimony?
• We'll get to witness testimony.
• OK, OK, let's go on with the testimony. We'll come back around.
• Thank you all for your testimony. At this time, chair calls Myra Nolan.
• Whether in testimony today or following up, um, after this hearing.

Bills: HB15, HB171, HB204

Keywords: flood risk, campground, safety regulations, civil penalty, guest safety, Harris County, flood control, governance, expansion, public health, local governance, environmental management

Transcript Highlights:

• strong support with our in testimony strong support with our in testimony already<00:02:40.440><
• You have our University's testimony. We can stand on our testimony.
• testimony we can stand on our testimony testimony we can stand on our testimony this<00:04:06.959
• We stand on our testimony in support.
• We stand on our testimony in support.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Committee on Higher Education met on March 11 and began with House Bill 442, which would appropriate funds to the University of Hawaiʻi system for nursing programs. University of Hawaiʻi representatives testified in strong support, and several additional supporters submitted testimony. Members asked about a similar Senate measure, and the witness confirmed the university supported that bill as well. No opposition or vote was recorded on HB 442 during the excerpt. The committee then heard House Bill 1169, a housekeeping measure concerning the University of Hawaiʻi Conference Center revolving fund. Testimony explained that the bill would consolidate existing Conference Center statutes into one centralized fund statute and allow campuses to use the fund more broadly. Members raised no questions, and no vote was taken in the excerpt. House Bill 185, which would establish a plant-based building materials working group, drew the most discussion. The Department of Agriculture said it supported the intent but wanted baseline research before a larger working group was formed. Supporters argued the measure could help develop a homegrown industry using bamboo, hemp, and other plant materials, create green jobs, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Several members questioned whether a formal working group was necessary and whether the work could be done without new legislation. The University of Hawaiʻi later estimated the bill’s requested work would cost about $150,000 over two years to analyze crop options and report findings. The final measure discussed in the excerpt was House Bill 1320, which requires the University of Hawaiʻi to collect, analyze, and publicly report graduate outcome data and develop a Graduate Outcomes Dashboard. University officials said they already use some data sources but lack a dedicated data-visualization specialist and need additional capacity to consolidate and present the information. Members questioned the need for new positions and funding, arguing the university should use existing resources and that students already have many ways to explore careers. Supporters responded that the dashboard would help students and the state better understand postgraduate outcomes, workforce needs, and program value. No final action or vote was shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• about this and and we've heard testimony about this and and the<00:16:28.279> testimony<00:16
• Like I said, we've heard testimony about potential impacts.
• And like I said, we've heard the testimony and decided against this type of tax.
• Like I said, we've heard testimony about potential impacts.
• <01:33:34.480> is issue we heard in the testimony is issue we heard in the testimony is apparently

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first held a public hearing on HB 660, which would require historic horse racing facilities to provide 10% of HHR winnings to host municipalities as mitigation. Representative Om said the bill was intended to offset local costs associated with large gaming facilities, noting that prior gaming measures included opt-in provisions and that this proposal would leave charities and the state whole while taking the 10% from the operator’s share. Members questioned why 10% was chosen and whether municipalities were currently experiencing added costs; Om said the amount was meant to address projected future impacts, not broader municipal budget issues, and cited a study on casino-related community costs. Opponents from the New Hampshire Charitable Gaming Operators Association argued the bill unfairly singled out one industry and said gaming facilities do not impose more municipal burden than other entertainment venues. The hearing closed without a vote, and a member clarified the bill would apply to existing and future casinos/facilities. The committee then opened a hearing on HB 658-FN, which raises the cap on reimbursements from the Oil Discharge and Disposal Cleanup Fund and makes related changes to the Oil Pollution Control Fund. Representative Malloy introduced the bill, and Representative Aly described the funds as an insurance backstop for oil spill cleanup and low-income tank replacement, saying the program helps prevent environmental hazards and satisfies financial responsibility requirements. Bob Scully of the Energy Marketers Association supported the bill but noted that fee changes are ultimately passed on to consumers. Department of Environmental Services officials Robert Bishop and Jennifer Marts explained that the bill would change reporting deadlines, raise the reimbursement cap for low-income homeowners, extend the fee collection period for 10 years, and adjust petroleum import fees based on an actuarial review. They said the funds cover spill response, prevention, and tank replacement, and that the fee structure was designed to keep the funds solvent while balancing costs across fuel categories. Committee members asked about the actuarial basis for the fee changes, why some fees would rise while others would fall, and how the funds are used. DES said the review used 10 years of claims and exposure data and that the fuel oil fee would otherwise need to rise sharply, so the board proposed a smaller increase and rebalanced other fees. Members also asked about the scope of covered oil imports, and DES explained that the fee applies to oil destined for use in New Hampshire, not merely passing through the state. The discussion also covered home heating oil spills, which DES said are often discovered by homeowners or fire departments and are usually caused by tank corrosion, piping, or overfills. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chair noted that the policy committee had already approved the bill before the finance-focused review.

Transcript Highlights:

• >> Got your written testimony. >> Got your written testimony.
• . testimony. testimony.
• none, thank you for your testimony. none, thank you for your testimony.
• testimony that I'll drop. testimony that I'll drop.
• . testimony. testimony.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee opened a hearing on House Bill 1067-FN, which would formalize and expand mental health courts in New Hampshire and create a grant-based funding structure for them. Representative Mark Pearson, the prime sponsor, described the bill as a bipartisan, compassionate, and cost-effective approach that would connect people with mental illness to treatment and supervision instead of incarceration, while still holding them accountable. He said the proposal was developed with input from the judicial branch, law enforcement, corrections, mental health organizations, and others, and emphasized that local courts could tailor programs to their needs. Committee members questioned the bill’s fiscal note, whether the legislature had previously studied the issue, how the program would be funded, and whether the bill should more explicitly address treatment, prevention, and data collection. Representative Buzz Sher, who helped develop the bill, explained how mental health courts work, including referral, clinical and public-safety assessments, case management, goal-setting, and graduation from the program. He said existing New Hampshire mental health courts are mostly partial and county-funded, and that the bill would formalize them, set standards, and allow grant funding. He also cited data from Georgia and New Hampshire suggesting significant savings from reduced incarceration and related costs. Members also raised concerns about due process, whether people not formally charged could be swept into the system, and whether individuals with violent offenses or domestic violence histories could be diverted inappropriately. Sher responded that only people already in the criminal justice process are eligible and that courts use safety assessments to screen out most violent cases. The committee requested that Sher file supporting financial data from other jurisdictions, and he agreed to do so. No vote or final action was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:48:14.599> representative love it great testimony representative love it great testimony
• want to uh concentrate my testimony want to uh concentrate my testimony on<01:07:48.599> um
• <01:29:35.600> real please come give your testimony real please come give your testimony real
• Thank you for hearing my testimony.
• about 8:45 you'll see on on my testimony about 8:45 you'll see on on my testimony I<04:08:16.600

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We've had one testimony on the Arts.
• Summarize your testimony, please, sir. Summarize your testimony, please, sir.
• Brian Re concluded his testimony.
• But my testimony was my own. Thank too. But my testimony was my own.
• Thank you, Robert. testimony. Many of the points that are testimony.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• . >> Thank you for your testimony.
• Um up next is Nan for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you very much for your testimony.
• Is there anyone else present testimony.

Bills: HF4561, HF4343

Keywords: homeless prevention aid, homelessness, housing stability, rental assistance, family homelessness, unaccompanied youth, housing navigation, legal representation, family outreach, county aid, Tribal governments, local government aid, general fund appropriation, unspent funds, aid redistribution, sunset repeal, Minnesota property tax aid, services for persons experiencing homelessness, sales tax, use tax

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your testimony.
• Appreciate the testimony today. Jordan. Appreciate the testimony today.
• your testimony. your testimony. Good<00:37:36.400> afternoon.
• your testimony? Of course. Thank you. your testimony? Of course. Thank you.
• Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Thank you for your testimony, Ms.

Bills: HF3776, HF3557, HF3585

Keywords: screen time, preschool, kindergarten, early childhood education, digital media, tablets, smartphones, educational technology, EdTech, classroom devices, publicly funded preschool, school policy, child development, special education, IEP, 504 plan, IFSP, Minnesota education law, climate literacy, education

Summary: The committee first approved the previous day’s minutes, then took up House File 3776, as amended by the A2 amendment, which clarified how the bill would apply to students with IEPs and 504 plans. The bill’s author argued that Minnesota should address screen time for preschool and kindergarten students, saying current law is too broad, that young children are especially vulnerable to developmental and attention harms from screens, and that parents and teachers should have more control over device use. The bill was laid over after discussion. Testimony on HF 3776 was split. Amanda Faye of Minnetonka Public Schools opposed the bill as drafted, saying it would conflict with existing academic standards, READ Act screening requirements, accessibility tools, and local control, and would force districts back to paper-based screening. Katherine Myers of Live More Screen Less supported the bill, citing concerns about early childhood screen exposure and arguing that screen-free time supports child development. Members raised concerns about local control, parental rights, and how to protect students who need devices for accommodations; the author and nonpartisan staff noted that schools can already adopt cell phone policies, but exceptions may be needed for certain students and uses. After laying over HF 3776, the committee began House File 3557. Representative Craft introduced the bill as a voluntary program to promote practical science education and workforce development tied to climate literacy, including a proposed Minnesota Seal of Climate Literacy for high school students. The bill was only introduced before the transcript ended, with no vote or final action recorded on HF 3557.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your service. Representative Kilcoyne.
• Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you very much for your testimony and your service. Thank you.
• He put it also succinctly in our testimony in favor of Senate Bill 1888.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Service held a hearing on a wide range of credible service and retirement-related bills, with testimony largely focused on allowing public employees to buy back prior service time or receive more appropriate retirement classifications. Bills discussed included retirement buyback for Joint Base Cape Cod firefighters (H. 4317), clarification of call firefighter buyback rights (H. 2883/S. 1915), veterans’ buyback (H. 2957), a Bridgewater State University police death-benefit/heart-law issue (filed by Rep. Gallagher), unpaid parental leave buyback for municipal employees (H. 2946), school nurse creditable service (H. 2887/S. 1787), former private/parochial school teacher buyback (S. 1900/H. 2873), Massport police retirement classification (S. 1888), contract employee buyback (H. 2795), Retirement Plus late entry (H. 2792), CVTE/teacher-related buyback issues (H. 2762), Peace Corps/AmeriCorps creditable service (H. 2927), and institutional school teacher retirement fairness (H. 2757). Several speakers also referenced related bills for teachers and nurses that had been heard previously or were filed in parallel in the other branch. Testimony was overwhelmingly in support of the bills. Speakers argued that the measures would correct inequities, recognize prior public service, and help recruit and retain workers in hard-to-fill public jobs. Firefighters described the unique federal-to-state transition at Joint Base Cape Cod and said some members were left out of earlier buyback opportunities. Veterans, teachers, school nurses, correctional educators, and Massport police all described service requirements, administrative gaps, or outdated statutory language that they said unfairly limited retirement credit or placed them in the wrong retirement group. Several witnesses emphasized that the proposals were fiscally responsible because employees would pay the cost of the buybacks, and some noted that similar bills had been filed repeatedly in prior sessions. Committee members asked a few clarifying questions, mostly about why certain employees had been excluded under current law or how the retirement provisions would work. No opposition testimony was presented. The hearing concluded after all scheduled witnesses testified, with the chairs thanking participants for their service and the committee voting to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• Seeing none, we will move to public testimony.
• Chair: Seeing none, we are moving to public testimony. We have no public testimony. Any debate?
• We will move into public testimony.
• Chair: Seeing none, we will move on to public testimony.
• Chair: Okay, seeing none, we will move to public testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Each public witness will be given two minutes to provide his or her testimony.
• If there are no questions from Senator West, we'll open up public testimony.
• We don't show any witnesses registered for testimony on Senate Bill 2847.
• With no public testimony on Senate Bill 2847, public testimony will close and we'll leave.
• Okay, with no public testimony, public testimony will close.

Bills: SB2847, SB3039

Keywords: higher education, bachelor's degree, core curriculum, general education, semester credit hours, credit hours, degree acceleration, time to degree, workforce-aligned credentials, workforce readiness, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, public universities, community colleges, transferability, curriculum reform, academic requirements, degree completion, transfer students, education transparency, academic credit

Transcript Highlights:

• The floor is now open for public testimony. The chair calls Jerome Heaton and Alexandra Otto.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• The floor is now open for public testimony. The chair calls Carmen Tilton.
• If you could get your written testimony to us, we'd appreciate that.
• The floor is now open for public testimony. The chair calls Elizabeth Colvin.

Bills: SB227, SB269, SB407, SB463, SB527, SB547, SB1283, SB1380, SB1383, SB1511, SB1640, SB1784, SB2069

Keywords: school funding, education reform, state budget, property taxes, equity in education, healthcare policy, vaccines, exemptions, religious beliefs, public health, workplace violence, healthcare facilities, definition expansion, safety regulations, health and safety code, health insurance, anesthesia, pediatric dental services, coverage, medical necessity

Transcript Highlights:

• the uh and this is in my testimony the uh and this is in my testimony letter<02:09:54.800> also
• <03:36:15.600> emailed bill and with uh with testimony emailed bill and with uh with testimony
• <03:36:26.439> on Division uh you've heard my testimony on Division uh you've heard my testimony
• So am I interpreting your testimony correctly: is it your testimony that passing this would cause law
• Are they independent testimony?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Transportation Committee opened its public hearing with HB 249, sponsored by Representative Seth Miller, which would allow bicycles, human-powered vehicles, and electric bicycles to treat stop signs as yield signs and red lights as stop signs in certain situations. Miller argued the bill would improve cyclist safety and traffic flow at no cost to the state, citing Idaho and Delaware as examples where similar laws were associated with fewer injuries and crashes. He emphasized that the proposal would remain optional for cyclists, who would still be required to yield to cross traffic and obey right-of-way rules, and said the bill is intended to help riders maintain momentum and avoid the instability that comes from repeatedly starting from a full stop. Committee members raised concerns about uncertainty for drivers and pedestrians, liability, and whether the bill would create a special class of road users with different rules. Representative Crawford asked about the red-light left turn language, and Miller explained it was included because bicycles may not trigger some traffic signals. Representative Hill questioned how other road users would know what a cyclist intended to do at an intersection, and Representative Gon noted the bill did not appear to address liability the way some motorcycle-related laws do. Miller responded that cyclists would still be expected to yield appropriately and said he would be open to an amendment if liability language was needed. Representative Emble also questioned whether the bill would create a special vehicle class, and Miller replied that bicycles already have different roadway rules and that the bill was meant to improve safety and flow. Several supporters testified in favor of the bill. Michael Frank, a cyclist and League cycling instructor from Spofford, said he regularly rides a cargo bike for errands and that stopping fully at intersections leaves him exposed longer and makes it harder to restart on hills. He said the bill would let cyclists slow, assess traffic, and proceed safely while maintaining momentum, and noted that he had not personally received a ticket for rolling through a stop sign, though he had been warned by police. Tim Blagden, former head of the Bike-Walk Alliance of New Hampshire, said the bill reflects how many people already ride, saves energy, and helps bicycles move through intersections faster and more safely. No vote or committee action was taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thanks for your testimony. Thank you. Ms. Altman, you're up next. All right.
• Thank you for your testimony today. All right, next we have Ms. Beavers.
• Thank you for your testimony. Members, any questions? I see one.
• Appreciate you coming and giving the testimony.
• Thank you, and thank you for your testimony. You've articulated very well.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• your testimony, please. your testimony, please.
• . testimony. testimony.
• yourself and tell us your testimony? yourself and tell us your testimony?
• Then we'll go to the public testimony. We've got one pro and one con testimony.
• yourself and present your testimony. yourself and present your testimony.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the committee for hearing my testimony the committee for hearing my testimony I'm<01:39:27.360><
• testimony testimony today<01:53:34.880> the<01:53:35.000> chair<01:53:35.280> calls
• <03:02:26.800> I the rest of it in my testimony I the rest of it in my testimony I submitted
• Chairman and committee, thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your testimony.
• And if you would just look at the testimony that is before you, my testimony, the front page looks like

Keywords: 1189, house, all