Transcript Highlights:

• I don't know if I could speak to the administration's position on it.
• I don't know if I could speak to the administration's position on that.
• proposals totaling 24 positions and $6.3 million are related to recently enacted legislation.
• Chair, just one quick follow-up: the budget asked for the 26 positions, the $3.2 million.
• We couldn't immediately fill these positions.

Summary: The committee heard extensive testimony on Proposition 36 and its implementation, with judicial and budget officials describing it as a major shift from misdemeanor to felony processing for repeat drug possession and certain theft offenses. Witnesses explained that the law creates a treatment-mandated felony process that can lead to dismissal if a defendant completes treatment, but also requires evaluations, court monitoring, and potentially long, open-ended supervision. Judicial representatives said the new law is already generating large numbers of filings, creating workload, staffing, courtroom, and facility pressures, and that access to treatment beds, housing, and evaluation capacity is limiting participation. Several speakers emphasized that collaborative courts are effective but are not a perfect fit for Prop. 36 because those programs are typically probation-based and serve different risk/need populations. Court officials from San Bernardino and Orange counties said the impacts vary by county but are severe, with some counties seeing hundreds or more filings in a short period and others moving more slowly to build treatment infrastructure first. They argued that Prop. 36 is effectively an unfunded mandate unless the state provides more resources for judges, staff, facilities, treatment, housing, and supervision. The Legislative Analyst’s Office noted that Prop. 36 will reduce the Proposition 47 savings that fund mental health and substance use treatment grants, but said the near-term reduction is relatively modest and that the full effect will take time to appear because of the way those savings are calculated. Members of the committee repeatedly raised concerns that the state is underfunding the courts and counties needed to carry out the new law. The committee also reviewed the Governor’s proposed trial court operations budget, including a partial restoration of a prior $97 million cut and additional ongoing funding. Judicial branch officials said the restoration helped avoid furloughs, hiring freezes, and service reductions, and supported cybersecurity, technology, staffing, and records management. The LAO recommended that the Legislature seek more detail on how midyear restorations are handled and consider clarifying language for transferring unspent trial court trust fund monies to the General Fund. Finance said the flexibility in the ongoing funding was intentional and would be taken back for consideration. In a separate item, the committee heard testimony on a $6.3 million increase for Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal appointed counsel programs. Judicial officials and appellate project representatives said the system is facing a crisis because indigent appeals have risen sharply while the number of panel attorneys has fallen, leaving many cases waiting months for counsel. They argued the proposed increase would help but is still below what is needed to recruit and retain attorneys and prevent delays that affect criminal, juvenile, and child welfare cases. The committee also discussed the Tracy courthouse project in San Joaquin County, where local officials said reopening a courthouse closed since 2011 is necessary to serve a growing population and relieve overcrowding elsewhere. The LAO and Finance both noted the project is next in line under the facilities plan, though LAO suggested the Legislature could consider whether other facility priorities should come first.

Transcript Highlights:

• The cost is associated with them creating a division with six to ten positions for broad enforcement.
• When it came to my attention, my question was why are you saying that you need six to ten positions?
• Last year, I believe they didn't have a handle on how many positions they would need.
• Last year, I believe they didn't have a handle on how many positions they would need.
• They said it was going to be an increase this year. they said ...have a handle on how many positions

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee met with eight members present and deferred HB 127. It then considered a series of bills, most of which were reported favorably without opposition. HB 22 revised COLA rules for the clerks of court retirement system, allowing more frequent COLAs when the system is better funded; HB 324 made judicial stipends permanent and added future COLAs subject to available funding; HB 233 increased jury mileage reimbursement; HB 47 reorganized assessor retirement COLA statutes; HB 533 allowed St. Tammany Parish to transfer unused witness-fee account balances to the 22nd Judicial District Court; HB 980 adjusted eligibility for the Firemen’s Supplemental Pay Board; HCR 45 urged Congress to clarify ARPA deadlines for water projects; HB 559 increased court costs in the 4th Judicial District; HB 290 recreated the Department of Treasury and related entities in statute; and HB 382 addressed Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget review authority over Group Benefits plans. The committee also reported HB 1157 favorably, creating a financing bank mechanism for infrastructure projects, and HB 575 favorably, giving youth aging out of foster care preferred access to surplus state vehicles through the Louisiana Property Assistance Agency. Several measures drew more discussion. HB 1236, dealing with pharmacy benefit managers and professional dispensing fees, prompted extensive testimony from the sponsor, the Legislative Fiscal Office, the Department of Insurance, independent pharmacies, and PBM representatives. Supporters said it clarifies and strengthens enforcement of existing PBM law and protects independent pharmacies; opponents argued the bill’s requirement that PBMs bear dispensing-fee costs would be difficult to implement and could raise premiums. The sponsor said he would work on amendments, including clarifying language and a delayed effective date, and the bill was nevertheless moved favorably. SB 25, on registrar of voters compensation, was amended to a revised pay structure and then reported favorably. HB 47 and HB 533 were also presented as funding and administrative cleanups for retirement and court-related accounts, with local support noted. The committee also heard HB 233 on jury duty mileage reimbursement, which the sponsor said updates a 1961 rate and would be funded locally at an estimated average increase of about $4,000 per judicial district. HB 324 on judicial salaries was described as self-funded by the judiciary and subject to available funding, with no budget impact. HB 575 on foster youth transportation was presented as a non-appropriation measure aimed at helping youth aging out of foster care by giving them preferred access to surplus vehicles. HB 382, which concerns the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget’s role in approving Group Benefits plans, was reported favorably with little discussion. The meeting ended after a motion to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• Name, organization, and position.
• Name, organization, and position.
• Name, organization, and position.
• Name, organization, and position.
• In opposition, name, organization, position. Mr.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 605 WITH THE TRAINING PROPOSED IN THIS  BILL OFFICER INTERACTIONS WITH  606 Practicing positive
• Practicing positive interactions need to occur before a situation presents itself, and with the training
• We specifically encourage that positive interaction.
•   684 PRACTICING POSITIVE INTERACTIONS  NEED TO OCCUR BEFORE A SITUATION  685 PRESENTS
• BATHROOM AND  COME BACK TO LATER MAKE ALL THE  691 DIFFERENCE IN FOSTERING THESE  POSITIVE

Summary: The Budget Committee met with a quorum present and heard several bills, with HB 1483 temporarily postponed. The most contentious measure was HB 945, which would create a state counterintelligence/counterterrorism team within FDLE. The sponsor said it was aimed at terrorists, nation-state actors, and other criminal threats, not political speech, and noted an amendment would address First Amendment concerns later. Opponents from the First Amendment Foundation, ACLU Florida, and other groups argued the bill was too vague, lacked guardrails, and could enable surveillance of protected speech or political activity. Members also raised questions about fiscal impact, oversight, warrants, and the bill’s July start date. Despite those concerns, the committee reported HB 945 favorably by roll call vote. The committee then unanimously passed HB 6507, a claims bill appropriating funds to compensate for damages caused by departmental negligence. HB 813, which clarifies Florida’s firefighter cancer law and death-benefit provisions, also passed after an amendment narrowed the bill and added language allowing a firefighter’s family to receive the death benefit if the firefighter separates from employment and dies within one year. Firefighter representatives supported the bill as a compassionate fix, while one local firefighter representative opposed the amendment, saying it would remove protections and create an arbitrary cutoff. Sponsors responded that DROP would not be affected and that the change was intended to help terminally ill firefighters spend their final days at home without losing survivor benefits. Finally, HB 365, dealing with law enforcement interactions with individuals with autism, passed favorably. Supporters, including family members and autism advocates, said in-person training and positive interactions are crucial to preventing escalations and tragedies during police encounters. They described real-life incidents where lack of training led to harmful outcomes and urged adoption of the bill’s training provisions. Members from both parties voiced support, calling the measure overdue and important for both public safety and the autism community. The chair closed the meeting by noting it was likely the committee’s last budget meeting and adjourned without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• Should you select to waive your speaking time, your position will be included in the committee meeting
• How many support staff positions do you need for that, too?
• We have just under 3,000 FTE statewide, and importantly, 57% of those FTE are attorney positions.
• as attorney positions and receive the funds to be able to pay for those attorneys.
• Your new position. I've worked alongside you for many years. I know that you've done great work.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• To come up to the mic, state your name, organization, and your position. Good morning.
• It's very important, these very important positions, and with that I urge an aye vote.
• Seeing none, anyone just want to state their name and position? Thank you. Thank you.
• Position. Position please. Thank you. David Schmidt from Santa Rosa. Strong support.
• SB 408 is a positive step in the right direction and we urge your aye vote on SB 408.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Monks, please state your name, your position on the bill, and give us your testimony.
• Let's begin by stating your name and your position on the bill. And your testimony?
• State your name, your position on the bill, and give us your testimony, please.
• State your name and your position on the bill and give us your...
• You feel positive? I appreciate that. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. That's it. That's...

Bills: SB750, SB2995, SB1716, SB2430, SB203, SB1679, SB2683, SB1414

Keywords: tuition exemption, paramedics, higher education, public institutions, laboratory fees, education code, financial aid, education, student support, scholarships, nontraditional education, student enrollment, financial assistance, Texas students, foreign adversaries, trade secrets, research integrity, security measures, international agreements, student privacy

Transcript Highlights:

• Anyone else should state only their name, organization, if any, and their position on the bill.
• Name, organization, if any, and your position on the bill, please.
• Anyone in the audience that wants to express their position? Okay.
• Anyone in the audience that wants to express their position? Okay.
• Just name, organization, affiliation, if any, and your position, please? Good morning, Mr.

Summary: The Assembly Judiciary Committee heard three bills. AB 250 by Majority Leader Aguiar-Curry would extend a limited window for survivors of sexual assault to seek civil recourse against perpetrators and entities that allegedly covered up abuse. The author and supporters, including survivor Maya Alexander and Equal Rights Advocates, said many survivors need years before they can come forward and that the bill would improve accountability and public safety. One member raised concerns about the bill’s application to private employers and the exclusion of public employees, but the bill was advanced on a motion to Appropriations and later placed on call until additional votes were added. AB 373 by Assemblymember Rubio would require appointed counsel for non-minor dependents in extended foster care to represent the young adult’s expressed wishes rather than substitute the attorney’s judgment. Supporters from California Youth Connection and the Children’s Law Center said 18- to 21-year-olds in foster care are legal adults and should have their voices fully respected in court. Members discussed how the bill would work in practice and whether it applied only to appointed counsel; the bill was moved to Human Services and later cleared after additional votes were added. AB 387 by Assemblymember Alanis, as amended, would exempt probation officers from criminal jury service. The author and supporters argued probation officers are deeply involved in the criminal justice process, often get dismissed anyway, and should be focused on supervision and court-related duties rather than jury duty. The Judicial Council opposed the bill, warning that categorical exemptions shrink the jury pool and set a bad precedent. After debate over fairness, precedent, and the role of probation officers, the committee voted the bill out on a do pass motion.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that is different from the House position at this point.
• be another position that does remove those costs outright.
• is 26, 27 year at 197 positions at $30 million.
• And we will be funding those positions.
• and this is a great on record that this is our position and this is a great position to be in to put

Summary: The Senate opened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, doctor and guest introductions, and then took up Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 168, the Tristan Murphy Act, on mental health. Senator Bradley described the bill as a major criminal justice and behavioral health reform measure that would expand pretrial mental health diversion, strengthen treatment-based probation conditions, broaden grant uses for mental health and substance abuse programs, add Hillsborough County to a forensic hospital diversion pilot, require certain DOC mental health evaluations, and create a Florida Behavioral Health Data Repository. Senators from both parties spoke in strong support, emphasizing treatment over incarceration, public safety, data collection, and the Murphy family’s role in advancing the bill. The Senate passed the bill 37-0 and then approved 37 co-sponsors. The chamber then received the Senate’s 2025-26 General Appropriations Bill, SB 2500, with Chair Hooper outlining a $117.4 billion budget that he said reduces spending, preserves reserves, and includes major investments in water quality, transportation, education infrastructure, and reporting requirements. Committee chairs summarized their portions: K-12 funding at $34.7 billion with increases for FEFP, scholarships, VPK, school hardening, and school safety; higher education at $11.5 billion with workforce, nursing, reading, autism, and student aid investments; health and human services with a $1.8 billion increase for Medicaid, mental health, opioid response, disability services, and veterans programs; criminal and civil justice at $7.6 billion for corrections, juvenile justice, law enforcement, courts, and judgeships; transportation/tourism/economic development at about $18 billion including roads, housing, Visit Florida, and cultural grants; and agriculture/environment/general government with major Everglades, water quality, citrus, food bank, and agency IT funding. Members then questioned several budget items, especially education funding formulas, the shift of scholarship dollars below the line, the impact on public school districts, AP/IB and other accelerated program funding, the APD wait list, opioid settlement spending, arts grants, and the My Safe Florida Home and condo pilot programs. Chairs generally said scholarship and accelerated-program dollars were being restructured for transparency and flexibility rather than cut, that school districts would still receive funding based on enrollment, and that APD and other human services issues would continue to be worked out in conference. The budget discussion concluded with remarks praising staff and noting a 4% across-the-board pay raise for state employees and targeted increases for law enforcement and firefighters, followed by a recognition for FAMU Day at the Capitol.

Transcript Highlights:

• Are there any other members of the public here wishing to offer a position of support?
• We also have an opposed unless amended position. Thank you. Thank you.
• But not all innovation is positive.
• But not all innovation is positive.
• Anyone else here in support of this measure, name, organization, and position?

Summary: The committee began as a subcommittee due to the lack of a quorum and heard several privacy- and technology-related measures. The first item was H.R. 117, a resolution urging Congress to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The author and supporters argued the law is outdated and shields platforms from accountability for harms such as harassment, exploitation, scams, and other online abuse. Witnesses, including a survivor parent and a gender justice advocate, described harms to children, women, and LGBTQ people and urged a two-year sunset to force federal reform. Some members supported the resolution as a call for federal action, while one member said he could not support it because the resolution was too general and lacked specificity about the reforms being sought. No vote was taken because the committee lacked a quorum. The committee then heard SB 898, which would require manufacturers of connected consumer products to disclose how long they will support the software and to notify consumers when products approach end of life. The author said consumers deserve transparency about security updates and continued functionality, and supporters from Consumer Reports and PIRG emphasized cybersecurity risks, consumer confusion, and electronic waste from unsupported devices. Opponents, including business and industry groups, raised concerns about enforcement through the unfair competition law, notice burdens, labeling issues, and compliance challenges, especially for products with long support windows or third-party dependencies. One member expressed support, noting the cybersecurity risks of end-of-life devices, but again no vote was taken because there was no quorum. The committee also heard SB 435, which would narrow the CCPA definition of publicly available information to limit how businesses classify data as public. The author and supporters said the bill would close a loophole that allows data brokers and others to monetize personal information without meaningful consent and could help prevent surveillance and misuse of data, including by government agencies. Opponents argued the bill would upset the balance between privacy and the free flow of information, create compliance uncertainty, and retroactively reclassify information that businesses reasonably believed was public. Some members said they supported the goal of stronger privacy protections, while others said the bill was too broad. The committee again could not vote due to the lack of a quorum. Later, the committee heard SB 923, which would expand Californians’ right to delete personal information to cover data obtained from third parties and require online businesses to offer a web form or similar method for deletion requests. Supporters, including the California Privacy Protection Agency and consumer advocates, said the bill would make deletion rights meaningful and better address data broker practices. Opponents sought an opt-out-of-processing alternative and raised operational and legal concerns, but supporters said deletion is not the same as retention or processing limits. Members largely spoke in favor of the bill’s privacy goals, but no action was taken. The committee also heard SB 947, the “No Robo Bosses Act,” which would require human review for certain automated employment decisions and limit predictive analysis in workplace discipline and termination. Labor groups supported the bill as a safeguard against biased or erroneous AI-driven decisions, while business, public employer, and local government groups opposed it as overbroad and burdensome. Members voiced support for human oversight in employment decisions, but the item was not voted on because the committee still lacked a quorum. Finally, the committee began hearing SB 1114, the SOGI Data Privacy Act, which would restrict disclosure of sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex data to federal agencies absent a court order or legal requirement; the author and witness framed it as a response to federal efforts to obtain sensitive LGBTQ-related data.

Transcript Highlights:

• , liquor commission enforcement position, liquor commission enforcement position, what's<01:03:14.720
• We It's the majority's position. We It's the majority's position.<01:11:30.400> Okay.
• <01:11:38.800> the So it's the position of the House. the So it's the position of the House
• list of positions is not final.
• So over the biennium, not only are... financial position would be severely financial position would be

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:

• ,<00:03:10.239> use advocates a particular position, use advocates a particular position,
• So I rectify those two positions.
• And ideally, position to have to do it.
• <01:32:00.080> outcomes environment with more positive outcomes environment with more positive
• students positively during their day. students positively during their day.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the dees and I would say have a positive the dees and I would say have a positive relationship<00
• In this case, my position question.
• I think it's a positive and respectful.
• And I just think there's a lot of positives. Yeah.
• Hampton Beach, do you know the position Hampton Beach, do you know the position of<01:27:19.120>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on SB 27FN, which would change how improvements to dwellings over water are handled and align those projects more closely with the state building code. The bill was presented by Trisha Milo on behalf of Senator Lang, and attorney John Cronin explained that it arose from a specific New Hampshire Supreme Court case involving the Newcombs’ lakeside property, but that it could affect a small number of older waterfront homes statewide. He said the intent was to give the Department of Environmental Services (DES) limited waiver authority for improvements that do not harm water quality, plant life, or fish, while still requiring DES review and local permits. Committee members asked several questions about the scope of the bill, including whether it was tied to one case, how many properties might be affected, what counts as “living space,” and whether the language could allow larger decks or other expansions. Cronin said the bill was meant to be narrow, focused on access and egress and not on creating new living space, and that DES would still be able to deny unreasonable requests. He also described the Newcombs’ project as a rehabilitation of an older structure that had been approved locally and later challenged by DES, leading to the current dispute. Darlene Forst, the Wetlands Bureau administrator at DES, testified in opposition. She said the department was surprised the bill was being heard because it believed the Senate had sent it to interim study, and she argued the language was unclear and could have broader statewide effects than intended. Forst also said the underlying case was still active and should not be effectively re-litigated through this bill. No vote or final committee action was taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you are affiliated with an organization, the bills on which you are testifying, your position on the
• And I will say, my experience in this was really positive.
• It stayed consistently positive throughout the whole campaign.
• Allen held that same position for several years before me.
• And I believe it would be a positive change for Arlington.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Election Laws held a public hearing focused primarily on ranked choice voting (RCV) legislation and several local home rule petitions, along with one petition to authorize remote participation in Concord town meetings. Chairs Keenan and Hunt outlined hearing procedures and noted the committee would hear both in-person and virtual testimony. The committee also took testimony on Concord’s request for remote participation in open and special town meetings, with supporters arguing it would make town meeting more accessible to residents with childcare, mobility, work, or disability barriers while preserving direct democracy. A large portion of the hearing centered on RCV local-option bills and municipal petitions from communities including Concord, East Hampton, Salem, Chelsea, Arlington, Revere, Amherst, and others. Supporters—among them local officials, legislators, election advocates, educators, veterans, and nonprofit leaders—said RCV would reduce vote-splitting, encourage more candidates, promote more positive campaigning, improve representation, and increase turnout. East Hampton officials described their existing use of RCV, saying it produced record turnout, was easy for voters to understand with education, and could be expanded to multi-winner races without major added cost. Concord and Amherst witnesses said their voters had already approved local steps toward RCV and urged the committee to let municipalities implement the system without further delay. Testimony in favor of the local-option RCV bill emphasized home rule and local control, with several witnesses arguing the state should not block communities that have already voted to adopt RCV. Speakers from MassVOTE, the AFT Massachusetts, Voter Choice Massachusetts, Progressive Massachusetts, the Boston Teachers Union, and Veterans for All Voters said the reform would strengthen democracy, broaden participation, and save money by avoiding low-turnout preliminary elections. Some witnesses also referenced examples from Cambridge, Maine, and Utah to argue that RCV is workable, nonpartisan, and familiar to voters. The hearing ended with no votes or final committee action taken in the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill also preserves the requirements that the position be held by a Minnesota veteran.
• of staff position as a deputy<00:14:24.040> commissioner<00:14:24.920> of<00:14:25.000
• position be held by a Minnesota veteran. position be held by a Minnesota veteran.
• So, I mean, is that<00:46:55.520> the<00:46:55.760> Senate's<00:46:56.240> position,
• the Senate's position, the Senate DFL's<00:46:57.440> position,<00:46:57.840> is<00:46

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• have to cut positions.
• Like I say, I get a lot of that, and so do you in this position.
• I'm still in great discomfort being put in this position for the various reasons that I mentioned on
• I don't believe members of this committee would stand for that in your own position.
• Persons in these positions of authority need to be held accountable.

Bills: SB23, SB73, SB210, SB234, SB243, SB244, SM16

Keywords: student use, wireless devices, public schools, policy implementation, education technology funding, driver education, driver's ed, driving school, motorcycle safety, traffic safety, vulnerable road users, pedestrian safety, bicycle safety, cyclist, bike lane, micromobility, scooter, moped, motorcycle training, DWI prevention

Transcript Highlights:

• This is my first year in the position, the superintendent.
• We're put in a very tough position. position where I feel like some of these projects should never have
• Position, the type of project, the square footage, and the weighted MCI at the time of the award.
• So this first page, which would be on page 235, essentially shows the ranked position.
• If we don't invest any money into it, we'll be in a higher ranked position.

Transcript Highlights:

• want to put ourselves in a position want to put ourselves in a position where<00:19:58.720> you
• So, in your position, in looking at the bigger picture, if we were to consider a different option than
• in looking at the so in in your position in looking at the bigger<00:26:14.080> picture<00:26
• And the... what is the state, the governor's, or the executive's position about the amount of money we
• the main the to uh to basically position the main the main<00:34:35.720> troops<00:34:36.159>

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Public Safety heard testimony on several bills. HB 628 HD1, relating to education, would reinstate a prior law allowing veterans whose high school education was interrupted by wartime to receive a diploma. Testimony was generally supportive from the Office of Veterans Services, the Department of Education, the Hawaii Military Affairs Council, and an individual testifier, with one person in opposition. The committee later recommended passage of HB 628 HD1 as is, and the motion was adopted. The committee also heard HB 1158 HD1 and HB 1159 HD1, both relating to commercial harbors. HB 1158 HD1 concerns firefighting at commercial harbors and drew support from the Department of Transportation; the committee recommended passage as is and adopted the recommendation. HB 1159 HD1 would require masters or persons in charge of vessels to comply with a Harbor Master’s order to evacuate a commercial harbor during emergencies. Testimony included support from Hawaii Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Transportation, and comments from the Hawaii Harbor Users Group. Members raised concerns about small boat operators and safety, and the committee passed the bill with reservations. The committee then discussed HB 1262, relating to the Emergency and Budget Reserve Fund, and HB 1296, relating to the major disaster fund. Supporters of HB 1262 included the Climate Advisory Team and AARP Hawaii, while the Department of Budget and Finance cautioned about duplication of benefits with federal disaster aid and the need to preserve the fund’s primary purpose. Members questioned how the bill would interact with federal assistance and whether the fund could be used more broadly; no vote was taken, and the bill was deferred to decision-making. On HB 1296, HEMA and Budget and Finance opposed the measure, citing the need for flexibility in emergencies and concerns that added reporting requirements could hinder response efforts, while the Tax Foundation of Hawaii noted the major disaster fund is much smaller than the EBF. The committee likewise deferred HB 1296 to decision-making, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a little less aggressive, and the reception's been really positive.
• It's a little less aggressive, and the reception's been really positive.
• It's not as simple as just, oh, yeah, this is positive and this is really positive.
• You know, it may be falsely positive, and then you start someone on treatment.
• We have done blood-based biomarkers which are positive, high.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Identifying the legislation that is being lobbied and their positions will help shed light on this less
• for their positions that they take on legislation.
• What this does is right now a paid lobbyist and their employer do not have to name their positions at
• A paid lobbyist and their employer do not have to name their positions at the beginning of the lobbying
• And as the bill is right now, if they change their position, they have 48 hours to update that position

Keywords: 996, all