Transcript Highlights:

• All right, seeing none, we will move on to testimony.
• Alright, thank you very much for your testimony, uh, Ms. Boyd Mayces. OK, hold on.
• All right, thank you very much for your testimony, uh, Doctor Deakins. Yes, thanks.
• Thank you very much for your testimony, Doctor Merrill. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
• You've already heard expert testimony already.

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:23:42.960> Um testimony from Audabon. Um testimony from Audabon.
• >> testimony >> testimony >> testimony<01:30:55.760> of<01:30:57.120> what
• heard this testimony, I'll say it again. heard this testimony, I'll say it again.
• questions, thank you for your testimony questions, thank you for your testimony today. today. today
• testimony today. testimony today.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:19:27.400> thank<00:19:27.559> you testimony thank you testimony thank you anyone<00
• Thank you for your testimony.
• <01:20:20.520> thank 638 thank you for your testimony thank 638 thank you for your testimony
• <01:28:53.440> if thank you so much for your testimony if thank you so much for your testimony
• further thank you for your testimony further thank you for your testimony thank<02:27:36.359>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on House Bill 146, which would require longer retention and quicker disclosure of certain video recordings from traffic stops and similar motor vehicle violations when a citation is disputed. The prime sponsor described the bill as a response to a constituent who challenged a speeding ticket but could not obtain a cruiser video before it was deleted under the current 30-day retention practice. Supporters argued the bill is about fairness and access to potentially exculpatory evidence, and one member suggested a simple 60-day retention period might avoid confusion over different timelines. The sponsor also noted that the bill would not affect criminal cases and that victims and complainants should have access to the same evidence as law enforcement when a recording is relevant to a defense. Major Brendan Davey of the New Hampshire State Police testified in opposition. He said the proposal would create a different discovery standard for one type of evidence, could discourage agencies from adopting body-worn or cruiser cameras, and would add cost and administrative burden. He explained that the State Police already retain routine traffic-stop videos for at least 30 days, but keep videos much longer when complaints or possible litigation are involved, and said the current system balances efficiency with accountability. He also argued the underlying speeding case did not make the trooper video directly material to the citation, though he acknowledged the legislature could choose a longer blanket retention period if it wished. No vote was taken during the hearing. The committee then opened a public hearing on House Bill 638, which would allow people serving life without parole sentences to become eligible for a parole hearing at age 60 after serving at least 18 years, provided they have had no major conduct violations in the prior 10 years. The sponsor said the bill is intended to give a narrow second look to a small number of elderly prisoners, citing the high cost of incarceration and the health challenges of aging in prison. He emphasized that the bill would not automatically release anyone, would not apply to capital murder convictions under RSA 630:1, and would still allow victims to participate in the parole process. Testimony on HB 638 was mixed. Alexander Bailey, a survivor of violent crime and domestic violence advocate, supported the bill, saying many survivors favor rehabilitation, second chances, and restorative justice, and that people in prison often age faster and face serious health and safety problems. Another supporter, Russell Roy, began offering a personal story about crime, addiction, and violence in Concord, but the transcript cuts off before his full remarks. Committee members asked about why age 60 was chosen, how released individuals would support themselves, and whether victims or families would be consulted; the sponsor said 60 was meant to limit eligibility and reflect the health realities of prison, and that parole boards already consider support networks and victim input. No action or vote was taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• situated in after your testimony situated in after your testimony please<00:09:56.000> luckily
• <01:08:39.799> it as you mentioned in your testimony it as you mentioned in your testimony
• funding thank you for your testimony funding thank you for your testimony thank<02:46:21.600>
• One of them is a testimony from Dr.
• talks about in her written testimony talks about in her written testimony this<04:04:34.840>

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And that concludes my testimony.
• <00:56:46.160> uh all and that concludes my testimony uh all and that concludes my testimony
• I I we did sit and listen to testimony I I we did sit and listen to testimony yesterday<01:58:25.440
• <02:08:45.840> we I know I know that through testimony we I know I know that through testimony
• question um you cited some testimony question um you cited some testimony from<04:50:34.600>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first held a work session on HB 505, which would allow the sale of freeze-dried foods produced in homestead food operations. Members raised concerns about the bill’s broad language, especially the provision stating freeze-dried food would not be considered potentially hazardous. Several suggested narrowing the bill to specific products such as processed foods, berries, fruit, dairy products, ice cream, or vegetables, and requiring use of commercial freeze-drying equipment rather than dehydrators. There was also discussion of oxygen absorbers, moisture control, sanitation, and whether the issue should be handled in statute or rules. By the end of the discussion, members generally agreed the topic should be treated in a separate section of law rather than folded into the existing homestead food license, and the chair said the matter would be sent to the food safety subcommittee, with the possibility of a study committee if more time was needed. The committee then moved to HB 277, a technical correction to the animal cruelty statutes. Representative Bixby explained that current law refers to a “colt,” which applies only to male baby horses, leaving fillies unaddressed; the bill would replace “colt” with “foal” and make related wording changes so the restriction applies to any horse under 90 days old not being nursed by its dam. The New Hampshire Farm Bureau testified in support, saying the change was requested to clarify and modernize the statute and that the issue had been identified during work on related animal cruelty legislation. No votes were taken in the portion provided. The chair recessed the work session until 11:00 a.m. and announced that Representative Ktoa would take over the hearing on HB 277.

Transcript Highlights:

• good morning I have a written testimony good morning I have a written testimony may<01:28:28.080
• position thank you for your testimony position thank you for your testimony are<01:40:48.239>
• The committee has his testimony.
• testimony testimony okay<02:02:08.040> is<02:02:08.159> there<02:02:08.360> anyone<
• I'm not reading the whole testimony.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on House Bill 610, which would fold the Office of the Consumer Advocate into the Department of Energy rather than fully eliminate consumer advocacy functions. The prime sponsor argued the current office is small, funded by a special assessment on ratepayers, and duplicative of DOE work. He said moving the function to DOE would streamline energy policy review, reduce bureaucracy, and better focus the larger agency on lowering residential energy costs. He also disputed claims that the Consumer Advocate is independent, saying the office is appointed through a political process similar to DOE leadership. Committee members and the sponsor discussed whether the bill would actually relocate existing positions or replace them, and whether the Department of Energy would absorb the cost of the transferred staff. The sponsor said the fiscal note shows roughly a million-dollar reduction in both revenue assessment and spending, and that the bill would effectively reduce the office from five positions to three. He also defended his cost estimates for energy-code-related housing impacts and said the Consumer Advocate has sometimes supported policies he считает increase costs, such as energy-efficiency measures and building code changes. He argued the office should focus more on energy supply and generation, including natural gas and nuclear, rather than efficiency alone. Representative Wendy Thomas testified in opposition, saying the Consumer Advocate is an important, fair, and impartial voice for ratepayers and warning that the bill was fiscally irresponsible because the incumbent could still be owed salary and benefits if the office were repealed. She also said the bill’s drafting was confusing and that the Consumer Advocate’s role is to push back on utilities on behalf of consumers. Other members raised questions about whether the DOE would simply inherit the same political appointment structure and whether the bill would meaningfully lower bills. No vote was taken in the excerpt; the chair indicated additional testimony would follow, and the Department of Energy was present to answer questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:12:42.360> this for listening to my testimony this for listening to my testimony this
• Chairman, for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Your testimony. Any questions?

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:49:19.760> but I'll I'll kind of close my testimony but I'll I'll kind of close my testimony
• If you have written testimony, we certainly want to receive it.
• Thank you for taking my testimony.
• I covered that, I thought, pretty well in my testimony.
• I don't want you to just read your testimony.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee opened its hearing with a procedural discussion about a forthcoming Monday hearing, and the chair confirmed that any amendment deemed non-germane would be made public in advance and included in the calendar. The committee then took up House Bill 6, which would replace the word “citizen” in the Right-to-Know law with “any person,” allow requesters to specify the format of records, and expressly reference preliminary drafts circulated to a quorum or majority of a public body as disclosable material. The sponsor said the bill was intended to clarify existing law, remove uncertainty after a Rochester-related dispute over requester eligibility, and make records easier to obtain electronically unless doing so would be impossible, unusual, unduly burdensome, or harmful to recordkeeping integrity. Testimony was mixed. Cordell Johnston, speaking for himself as a municipal attorney, opposed most of the bill, especially the requirement that records be delivered electronically or by mail, arguing that out-of-state or out-of-country requests can be fishing expeditions that impose significant burdens on towns and clerks. He said local residents already can obtain records at town hall and that many municipalities voluntarily email records as a courtesy, but should not be required to mail large volumes of material. He also said the preliminary-draft language was unnecessary because such drafts are already covered when circulated to a quorum or majority. Representative Alexander raised concerns about the breadth of “any person,” potential abuse by bad actors, and the cost to municipalities, while Representative Peternell asked about whether the bill should account for nonresident property owners and business owners. The sponsor responded that limiting requesters by residency would not meaningfully stop abuse and said he did not know the bill’s fiscal impact, though he suggested it might improve efficiency. Yil Biset of the ACLU of New Hampshire testified in support of HB 6, calling it a modest and reasonable transparency measure. He said the preliminary-draft language was acceptable and consistent with existing exemption language in the public-meeting and documents statutes, and he said he was not aware of foreign-bot document requests occurring in New Hampshire. He also noted that current law already requires electronic disclosure when records exist electronically and can reasonably be provided that way. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• testimony this morning. testimony this morning.
• and thank you for, uh, your testimony. and thank you for, uh, your testimony.
• >> Thank you for your testimony. >> Thank you for your testimony.
• >> Thank you for your testimony. >> Thank you for your testimony.
• That's my testimony.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• >> Thank you for your testimony. So, just >> Thank you for your testimony.
• If it's a long testimony, my testimony would reflect what some of the other people in support have said
• . testimony. testimony.
• So, thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you very much for your testimony. testimony. testimony. >> Thank<02:38:39.840> you.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We will now move to testimony for the DE1.
• First on move to testimony for the DE1.
• record and proceed with your testimony. record and proceed with your testimony.
• I need to find my testimony again. Okay. I need to find my testimony again. Okay.
• Um, proceed with your testimony.

Bills: HF2438

Keywords: transportation finance, transportation policy, MnDOT, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Department of Public Safety, Metropolitan Council, highway funding, trunk highway fund, county state-aid highway fund, municipal state-aid street fund, state aid roads, local roads, bridge funding, road construction, transit funding, passenger rail, freight rail, aviation, airport development, safe routes to school

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you so much for your testimony.
• Thank you so much for your testimony.
• But their testimony said that the bill imposes no mandates and it costs no money.
• On behalf of the legislature, thank you for coming to Sacramento for your testimony.
• To Sacramento for your testimony. Thank you to the Senator for bringing this measure forward.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Aging and Long-Term Care met without an initial quorum and heard four Senate bills focused on older adults and people with disabilities. SB 837 by Senator Reyes would require Aging and Disability Resource Connection programs to provide disaster and emergency preparedness education tailored to older adults and people with disabilities. Supporters, including the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers and the California Commission on Aging, cited recent wildfire deaths and the need for better evacuation planning and preparedness. The bill passed on a due pass motion and was re-referred to the Committee on Emergency Management. SB 971 by Senator Choi would create a Healthy Aging Community Partnerships Program to encourage voluntary local partnerships, including with community colleges and other entities, to support social connection, technology help, caregiver resources, and other healthy aging activities. Supporters said it would promote independence and prevent isolation at no mandated cost, while one member questioned whether the bill addressed a current legal gap and whether public health departments should be involved. The committee approved the bill on a due pass motion and re-referred it to the Committee on Health. SB 1261 by Senator Laird would allow Aging and Disability Resource Connections to continue operating for one to two years during transitions when an area agency on aging or independent living center operator changes, preventing service disruptions. Testimony from Access Central Coast and the California Association of Area Agencies on Aging emphasized the importance of continuity for thousands of clients. The committee passed the bill and re-referred it to the Committee on Appropriations. SB 991 by Senator Menjivar, presented by Assemblymember Gonzalez, would require the Department of Social Services to classify substantiated abuse in residential care facilities for the elderly by specific abuse type rather than a broad residents’ rights category. Ombudsman advocates argued this would improve transparency and accountability; members also discussed whether similar protections should extend to younger adults in other licensed settings. The bill passed on a due pass motion and was re-referred to the Committee on Human Services.

Transcript Highlights:

• We believe that the proposed HD2 goes far beyond what was originally contemplated by the testimony from
• Senate position was basically along the lines of what the original DCCA testimony referred to, which
• was the House draft goes into permits and potentially far broader than that testimony.
• <00:10:50.880> referred the original um DCCA testimony referred the original um DCCA testimony
• So um at this point than that testimony.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• SEEING NO APPEARANCE FORMS ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC TESTIMONY? SEEING NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
• ANY OTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY?
• ANYMORE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. IS THERE DEBATE?
• ANY FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY? SEEING NO MORE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, NUMBERS, WE ARE IN DEBATE.
• IS THERE ANYMORE PUBLIC TESTIMONY? SEE NO MORE, IS THERE DEBATE?

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• What was the testimony regarding this piece that led you to this number, this percentage of 85%?
• What There<00:05:16.680> was<00:05:16.840> testimony<00:05:17.520> regarding<00:
• 05:18.560> this<00:05:18.840> piece There was testimony regarding this piece There was
• testimony regarding this piece that<00:05:19.440> led<00:05:19.760> you<00:05:19.920>
• Representative Tipton: Yeah, in his testimony he also mentioned that in the last decade the number of

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If you require assistance, please contact the Public testimony.
• You understand, I think, with the testimony today.
• If there are no further questions, we will proceed to public testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. The Chair calls Eric Standridge.

Bills: SB2215, SB2639

Keywords: zoning, municipality, municipal immunity, governmental immunity, local government, Chapter 211, Texas Local Government Code, land use, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, mandamus, attorney's fees, court costs, property rights, home rule city, code enforcement, planning and zoning, land development, municipal ordinance, historic landmark

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to limit testimony to 90 seconds this morning.
• Please plan for your testimony to be brief and to the point.
• All right, seeing none, or seeing no questions, we'll open testimony.
• It was a small testimony.
• All right, seeing none, the chair opens public testimony.

Bills: SJR27, SB53, SB311, SB1164, SB2807, SB1574, SB 53

Keywords: judicial conduct, state commission, judicial misconduct, commission membership, constitutional amendment, mental health, court proceedings, notice requirements, legal filings, electronic documents, Texas Supreme Court, writ power, mandamus, quo warranto, certiorari, procedendo, extraordinary writs, Government Code Section 22.002, separation of powers, judicial authority

Transcript Highlights:

• If there are no further questions, we will proceed to public testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony. The chair calls Randy Lee. Thank you for being here today.
• I submitted my written testimony.
• Okay, thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony. Thank you.

Bills: HB1835, HB2561, HB3630

Keywords: manufactured housing, HUD-code, zoning, local government regulations, installation permits, municipal utility district, board meetings, public access, meeting location, transparency, fire prevention, agriculture, local government, fire safety, regulations, 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you, members of the committee, for taking my testimony.
• >> thank you for your testimony. >> thank you for your testimony.
• , >> Thank you for your testimony, >> Thank you for your testimony, Representative. >
• adverse effects of um in my testimony. adverse effects of um in my testimony.
• <01:52:16.159> is Senator Roford, uh, my testimony is Senator Roford, uh, my testimony is

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Please introduce yourself for the record and continue with your testimony.
• Please introduce yourself for the record and continue with your testimony."
• record and continue with your testimony record and continue with your testimony thank<01:09:32.080
• My testimony applies to both bills. I'll save you some time. Thank you, Mr. Mcus.
• I'm really struck by the testimony today by Ms. Bennett, Mr. Hail, and Ms.

Keywords: 1183, house