Transcript Highlights:

• > whether<01:15:34.080> they're are going to determine whether they're are going to determine
• if it is worth a screen-in or screen-out determination.
• if it is worth a screen-in or screen-out determination.
• if it is worth a screen-in or screen-out determination.
• if it is worth a screen-in or screen-out determination.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 30 days to determine whether the allegation on its face has anything to it.
• whether<00:19:14.320> the 30 days to determine whether the 30 days to determine whether the
• We've removed their authority to determine what will be investigated and what will not.
• > bill<00:36:11.119> wouldn't determination and the bill wouldn't determination and the
• Okay, we can make the determination.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee discussed House Bill 185, which would amend RSA 3109 to add timelines for OPLC’s complaint review and investigation process. Members reviewed the existing five-year limitation period for misconduct complaints and noted that the bill would add a 30-day deadline for the office to make a recommendation to the board and a 90-day deadline to complete investigations. Some members raised concerns that the new deadlines could conflict with the existing statute of limitations, create pressure to dismiss cases too quickly, and potentially undermine the separation between OPLC’s investigative role and the boards’ adjudicatory role established by House Bill 655. Nicholas Fry, OPLC general counsel, testified that the agency’s fiscal note originally assumed it would need roughly double its staff to meet the proposed deadlines, though a later amendment reduced that estimate somewhat. He said OPLC would still need additional personnel, including investigatory paralegals and a physician investigator for the Board of Medicine, to meet the timeframes. He also explained OPLC’s current complaint and hearing procedures, including new consumer-friendly correspondence, website guidance, and efforts by the enforcement division to improve transparency and communication with complainants and licensees. Bob Quinn of the New Hampshire Association of Realtors testified in support of the bill’s basic goal of speeding up intake and investigation, saying the 30-day intake/review period was reasonable and that the bill would not change OPLC’s role in that first step. He argued, however, that the investigation step is where delays occur, especially for lower-priority complaints, and that some cases have remained unresolved for years. Committee members also questioned how the added staffing costs would be paid, with discussion of whether they would come from license fees or the general fund. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are a lot of things that determine who we are.
• There are a lot of things that determine who we are.
• There are a lot of things that determine who we are.
• There are a lot of things that determine who we are.
• There are a lot of things that determine who we are.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:10:09.000> what a legislature who determines what a legislature who determines what statutes
• <04:13:36.880> about of making determinations about of making determinations about immigration
• I don't think they're not gonna, they can't determine whether there's taxation.
• That has not been determined yet, but at most it would be two days, not next week.
• That has not been determined yet, but at most it would be two days, not next week.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first held a public hearing and then an executive session on HB 650, a housekeeping-style bill from the Joint Committee on Dedicated Funds. Testimony explained that the bill would remove references to two already-repealed dedicated funds, split the state parks dedicated fund so Cannon Mountain winter activities would be tracked separately from the rest of the parks system, and place a $1 million cap on the robotics education fund so excess money would revert to the general fund. Supporters said the changes were mainly administrative but would improve accounting and avoid timing issues; committee members asked about a typographical error in the bill text and whether the measure was more than housekeeping. The committee later voted 16-0 to recommend HB 650 ought to pass, and then placed it on the consent calendar. The committee also opened a public hearing on HB 585, which would revise the property tax exemption for religious organizations. Representative John Janigian, the sponsor, said the bill was intended to help small churches and other religious groups that own parsonages or worship buildings but no longer have a resident pastor, allowing them to rent space or use property for church purposes without losing the exemption so long as the money is used for church operations, maintenance, or outreach. He described his Salem church’s parsonage being taxed after it was no longer occupied by a pastor, and said the bill would prevent similar burdens on small congregations. Former Representative Betty Gay testified in support, describing prior assessor actions in Salem that taxed church land and buildings very aggressively, while a Municipal Association representative testified in opposition. Committee members raised questions about how terms such as “regularly recognized and constituted denomination” would be defined, whether the bill could be applied consistently to larger denominations with multiple parishes, and whether legislative research should review past treatment of similar cases.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, we're not involved in the process of determining how much the author is making.
• So, we're not involved in the process of determining how much the author is making.
• determined is best for our children. determined is best for our children.
• child's needs and to determine child's needs and to determine appropriate<01:41:03.280> methods
• If a principal determines that nines.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee on Education met on February 17 and announced it would limit public testimony to one minute because more than a thousand testimonies were expected on one measure. The first bill heard was HB 1934, relating to the Imagination Library of Hawaii. The state librarian and Friends of the Library supported the bill, saying the program is a proven, cost-effective way to improve early literacy and should be expanded statewide for children ages 0 to 5. Friends of the Library said the current 50/50 match requirement would be too difficult to meet immediately and asked for state funding for the first few years to help launch the expansion. Testimony included eight supporters and one opponent, and members asked whether the proposal was an expansion of an existing program; the state librarian said it would expand service beyond currently targeted communities. The committee then heard HB 20004, which would extend the floating librarian pilot program. The state librarian, Department of Education, HSTA, and several individuals testified in support. Supporters said the program helps address staffing needs and improves student readiness, especially for college and information literacy. One retired community college librarian said school librarians help students prepare for college and are increasingly important in teaching critical evaluation of misinformation and AI-generated content. Members asked about implementation of the existing pilot, including recruitment of certified librarians for neighbor island and Oahu complex areas; DOE said those positions had been identified and recruitment was underway, and existing funds remained intact. The final major discussion was HB 2398, which clarifies the library system’s role in RNMSP-related projects and public library construction on or near school land. The state librarian and public library system supported the bill, while the Department of Education and Attorney General’s office raised concerns about vague language, especially the phrase “land controlled by the board,” and suggested amendments. In questioning, the state librarian explained that the bill was prompted by conflicts on shared or adjacent school/public library sites, including traffic, pickup and drop-off access, and other operational issues. DOE described significant disruption from one project’s traffic changes and said planning for such projects should involve early coordination and formal agreements. The state librarian responded that the new bill would clarify oversight and help avoid delays and disputes over property control and future renovations.

Transcript Highlights:

• And what they determined<00:13:12.320> was<00:13:12.720> that<00:13:12.880> the<
• The Chair will now determine whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege.
• > the<07:19:44.718> resolution point determine whether the resolution point determine whether
• >> Taking over the central bank in order to determine the entire economy.
• I ask you determine the entire economy.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Tuesday, September 2, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's determined by the amount of knowledge you have.
• It's determined by the amount of knowledge you have.
• It's determined by the amount of knowledge you have.
• It's determined by the amount of knowledge you have.
• It's determined by the of tech you use.

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And due to the 2025 pension bill, the employer no longer has the right to contest PERA's determination
• contest PERA's determination. contest PERA's determination.
• Senator Sieberger. aren't determined by the number of aren't determined by the number of firefighters
• determined by the area and the resources and<01:31:03.040> what<01:31:03.200> they<01:
• The way it would be determined is if the fire chief in the municipality or the governing board determines

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The Legislative Commission on Pensions and Retirement met on April 14, 2026, adopted the April 7 minutes, and then took up Senate File 4464, which the chair said would be laid over after hearing testimony. The bill would restore continued health insurance coverage for police officers and firefighters in the PERA Police and Fire Fund who suffer documented physical duty-related injuries, addressing the current 5-year cap and the loss of coverage at normal retirement eligibility. Senator Hal Hoffman and Senator Hoffman’s testimony emphasized that the bill is a narrow fix for injured public safety workers and not a broader restructuring of retirement benefits. Supporters, including Mike Ladue of Law Enforcement Labor Services, several injured officers, Sheriff Ryan Kruger, and Amber Waldner, described the personal and family impacts of severe line-of-duty injuries and argued that coverage should continue to age 65 so families are not left with uncertainty if injuries worsen or force medical retirement. They said the bill would honor the promise made to public safety workers and provide stability for long-term care needs. One witness, Officer Albert, said the 2025 changes significantly reduced the protection he believed he and his family would have if his injury forced retirement. Anne Finn of the League of Minnesota Cities opposed the bill as drafted, warning that restoring coverage to age 65 for all physical injuries would be fiscally unsustainable without additional state funding. She said the 2025 pension changes were part of a negotiated package, noted that duty disability retirements are common, and argued the employer cost could reach about $500,000 per employee and create significant property tax pressure, especially for smaller communities. She urged the committee to work on a broader solution and said revisiting only one part of the 2025 law would create imbalance.

Transcript Highlights:

• An emphasis is made on the federally regulated determination of needy that must be made.
• An emphasis is made on the federally regulated determination of needy that must be made.
• process until a determination is made. process until a determination is made.
• Thank you for taking my question. >> How is an error determined, and who does it?
• and and who >> How is an error determined and and who does<01:34:28.560> it?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You have to make that determination 12 hours early, 6 hours early.
• We have technology to determine when a drone enters the zone.
• They have the opportunity to do so in determining a flood...
• That's what we use as a benchmark to determine disadvantaged status.
• And they’re all trying to determine the temperature for tomorrow.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This legislation is designed to align the evidence that plans follow in determining which patients can
• My insurer denied coverage for the test based on their determination of medical necessity.
• by doctors and necessity is determined by doctors and the<00:12:48.920> latest<00:12:49.360><
• what which patients can in determining what which patients can access<00:12:57.800> biomarker
• <02:16:17.199> time Care Services uh determination time Care Services uh determination time

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The joint hearing covered HB 553 on biomarker testing coverage, HB 556 on colorectal cancer screening access, and later HB 712 on 340B drug pricing. For HB 553, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, patient advocates Natalie Heyman and Susan Hirano, a surgical oncologist, and the American Lung Association strongly supported the bill, arguing that biomarker testing should be covered when ordered by a doctor and guided by current evidence. DHS and several insurers offered comments and requested amendments, with DHS saying it appreciated the intent but wanted changes. The committees then voted to pass HB 553 with amendments, including a House draft and a defective date of July 1, 3000; both the House Health and Human Services and Homelessness committees adopted the recommendation unanimously. For HB 556, testimony focused on closing gaps in colorectal cancer screening, especially for uninsured and underinsured patients who can get stool-based screening but then cannot access follow-up colonoscopies. Community Clinic of Maui, ACS CAN, and the American Cancer Society supported the bill, with ACS CAN urging a program similar to the breast and cervical cancer control program and offering amendments. DHS requested that the program and appropriation not conflict with executive budget priorities, and the committees noted technical amendments, a defective date, a blank appropriation amount, and corrections changing Medicare references to Medicaid. HB 556 was also passed with amendments by both committees. The hearing then moved to HB 712 on 340B drug pricing and contract pharmacies. The Department of Health and the Attorney General’s office expressed concern that the bill would require the state to regulate private commercial activity and said the department lacked the expertise and resources to implement it as written, suggesting it might belong in a different statutory section. In contrast, PhRMA opposed the bill, while Hawaii Pacific Health and Hawaii Island Community Health Center supported it, saying 340B savings are important for hospital services and patient access to low-cost medications, especially where manufacturers have restricted shipments to contract pharmacies. No vote on HB 712 was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, what's the determination of where funds go?
• So they determined what we're going to do with 87.9% of it is all I'm asking.
• of where um >> Um what's the determination of where um funds<00:23:36.159> go?
• So<00:27:32.480> they<00:27:32.799> determined<00:27:33.360> what<00:27:33.600><
• But you guys determine you know it was.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• States, to determine what powers corporations have, if at all.
• The states have the power to determine what powers it grants corporations.
• The states have the power to determine what powers it grants corporations.
• rights as the Supreme Court determined rights as the Supreme Court determined in<00:31:07.760>
• It um it says uh to determine this.

Bills: HF4133, HF3419

Keywords: homeowner's insurance, peace officer, property damage, just compensation, exclusion policy, corporate powers, entity law, business corporations, nonprofit corporations, LLC, limited liability company, cooperative, partnership, trust, foreign entity, campaign finance, election spending, political spending, ballot measure, ballot initiative

Transcript Highlights:

• If the subcommittee determines that any of the bills under our consideration can be returned to the Election
• that any of the bills under determines that any of the bills under our<00:04:28.479> consideration
• If the supervisor of the checklist determines that they have not been established, they shall not be
• <00:54:15.839> that that house bill 133 determined that that house bill 133 determined that
• <01:00:34.799> those is it is it possible to determine those is it is it possible to determine

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That's a presumptive eligibility determination.
• That's a presumptive eligibility determination.
• That's a presumptive eligibility determination.
• <01:14:48.800> but through a disability determination but through a disability determination
• this disability determination process this disability determination process takes<01:14:51.320><

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Commissioner Peterson said that is still to be determined.
• A lot of attention on what's happening in our kennel and breeder communities and trying to determine
• A lot of attention on what's happening in our kennel and breeder communities and trying to determine
• communities and trying to determine communities and trying to determine where<01:04:54.599> our
• <01:37:06.960> was this virus that it was determined was this virus that it was determined

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• is a wiser determination.
• is a wiser determination.
• is a wiser determination.
• is a wiser determination.
• <00:27:25.039> I determination is a wiser determination I determination is a wiser determination

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard Representative Sweeney present and defend the budget amendment legalizing video lottery terminals (VLTs) and setting a 30% tax rate, with 65% of the tax going to the state and 35% to charities. He argued the lower rate was needed to encourage operators of historic horse racing (HHR) machines to convert to VLTs, saying the higher 45% rate would discourage adoption. He walked through revenue projections for fiscal years 2026 and 2027, estimating significant increases in state and charity revenue as machines transition over time, and said the amendment was designed to expand charitable gaming revenue overall. Several members questioned the assumptions behind his projections and the basis for his analysis, including why his independent research differed from the governor’s and Lottery Commission’s estimates. Sweeney said his figures were based on research into other states and conversations over many years, and he maintained that a 45% tax would likely result in no VLT adoption. Members also debated whether the transition costs for operators would be quickly recouped and whether the state’s share should be larger. One member emphasized that the committee was effectively choosing between a lower operator share and a higher state share, while Sweeney argued the 30% structure would produce revenue for everyone. The committee then moved to other revenue items on the tracking sheet. It voted 7-0 to accept the Lottery Commission’s revised base revenue estimates. Members also discussed an amendment to repeal the local option requirement for Kino games, which would expand Kino availability and was estimated to generate additional lottery profit in fiscal years 2026 and 2027. That amendment drew opposition from members who said local control was an important part of the original Kino policy and that removing it would override municipal decisions. The committee also noted that the VLT/HHR revenue item had already been adopted and was being revisited only to confirm the associated revenue estimates.

Transcript Highlights:

• /c><00:18:03.120> have ineligible because we would have ineligible because we would have determined
• when any credits that would determined when any credits that would may<00:18:06.960> have<00:
• c> biologically female means a female as biologically female means a female as biologically determined
• by genetics and defined with determined by genetics and defined with respect<00:59:04.079> to
• <01:16:29.360> inmate determining inmate determining inmate placement<01:16:31.320> I<01

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• So I think it's the Department of Safety that's making that determination and passing this.
• safety that's making that determination safety that's making that determination and<00:14:27.720
• they appli the our our test to determine they appli the our our test to determine whether<00:36:
• How do they determine which cases they're going to pursue to sort of reinforce so that they can share
• How do they determine which cases they're going to pursue to sort of reinforce so that they can share

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on HB 733-FN, a bill on third-party litigation financing (TPLF). Representative Cole, the prime sponsor, described TPLF as outside investors financing lawsuits in which they have no personal stake, arguing that the practice is largely unregulated, can involve foreign entities, and contributes to litigation abuse, higher insurance costs, and what he called a “tort tax.” He said the bill is modeled on an NCOIL proposal and would require disclosure of TPLF agreements, with specific references to foreign-entity restrictions, consumer-protection guardrails, and reporting requirements. He also noted a few technical fixes to the draft, including adding the word “knowingly” and restoring a section that had been omitted. Committee members questioned how the bill’s foreign-entity language would work, including whether a governor or the Department of Safety would designate countries of concern, and whether the bill would bar foreign parties from using litigation funding. Cole and others clarified that the bill was intended as a reporting measure, not a ban on litigation funding itself, and that the goal was to disclose who is funding lawsuits and to what extent. Representative Sal asked whether the bill would prevent a litigant from getting outside financing; Cole answered no, emphasizing disclosure rather than prohibition. Brandon Grat of the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau testified that the bill’s enforcement provisions were too limited. He said the draft appears to give the Attorney General only a civil-penalty remedy, likely too small to deter violations, and not the broader Consumer Protection Act tools such as injunctions, restitution, or investigation authority. He also raised concerns about whether the Attorney General or Insurance Department would have proper jurisdiction, given that the product may be financial or insurance-related. Insurance Commissioner DJ Benton Court said the department sees possible benefits from transparency because disclosure of litigation funding could help insurers assess risk, improve underwriting, and potentially ease hard-market pressures, especially for nonprofits and child care providers. He also said the bill’s language likely needs further work to clarify agency authority and suggested involving the Attorney General, Insurance Department, and banking regulators. Opposition testimony came from the New Hampshire Trial Lawyers Association. Marissa Chase and Samantha Hering argued the bill is one-sided because it requires disclosure only on the plaintiff side and not from defendants or insurers. They said New Hampshire already has court rules and discovery procedures that cover relevant disclosures, making the bill unnecessary, and questioned whether the existence of a funding contract is even relevant in litigation. The hearing ended with the committee continuing to discuss possible revisions and enforcement options, but no vote or final action was taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I think it's the Department of Safety that's making that determination and passing this.
• safety that's making that determination safety that's making that determination and<00:14:27.720
• they appli the our our test to determine they appli the our our test to determine whether<00:36:
• How do they determine which cases they’re going to pursue to sort of reinforce so that they can share
• requirement we're trying to determine requirement we're trying to determine whether<01:19:28.239

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 733-FN, a bill concerning third-party litigation financing (TPLF). Representative Cole, the prime sponsor, described TPLF as outside investors funding lawsuits in which they have no personal stake, arguing that the practice is largely unregulated, can involve foreign entities, increases litigation abuse, and contributes to higher insurance and consumer costs. He said the bill is modeled on an NCOIL proposal and would require disclosure of TPLF agreements, with guardrails and reporting requirements on specified pages of the bill. He also noted a couple of drafting fixes, including adding the word “knowingly” and incorporating a missing section later. Members raised questions about the bill’s foreign-entity language, especially the provision allowing a governor or the Department of Safety to designate a country as a threat to critical infrastructure. Representative Cole said he would have lawyers review that issue. Another member asked whether the bill would prohibit a party from obtaining outside funding for a lawsuit; Cole clarified that the bill is intended as a reporting measure, not a ban, and that disclosure would be required. He also said the bill is aimed at American citizens rather than foreign-backed financing, and that some states had considered caps on such arrangements, though this bill does not. Brandon Gratz of the Attorney General’s office testified that the enforcement language appears too limited, because it would allow only civil penalties and not broader Consumer Protection Act remedies such as injunctions or restitution. He suggested the Attorney General may not have meaningful authority under the bill as written and raised possible insurance-law issues. Commissioner D.J. Benton-Court of the Insurance Department said the disclosure could help insurers better assess risk and potentially soften the hard insurance market by improving transparency, competition, underwriting, innovation, and claims management. He also said the bill likely needs further work on jurisdiction and enforcement, and that the committee may need to coordinate with the Attorney General, Insurance Department, and possibly banking regulators. No vote was taken in the portion provided.