Transcript Highlights:

• There is a $10 fee for that retest.
• Is that $175 a one-time fee or an annual fee?”
• Is that $175 a one-time fee or an<01:51:42.880> annual<01:51:43.280> fee?
• That annual fee like with an annual fee?
• I I think third is is the fee.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing began with SB 12, which would let certain veterans who already qualify for a disabled veteran license plate use that VA disability determination to obtain a walking disability placard without having to undergo a second physical or submit additional proof. Senator Waters, the prime sponsor, said the bill was prompted by a constituent and would reduce redundant paperwork. Melinda Sims of United Spinal and Leo Pacquin of the State Veterans Advisory Committee both supported the bill, saying veterans already go through an extensive VA certification process and should not have to repeat it for the state. A DMV representative said the department had no known objection and explained that the change would let the placard travel with the veteran in another vehicle. The hearing on SB 12 was then closed. The committee then took up SB 40, which would allow safe boater education certificates to be completed and tested online, rather than requiring an in-person final exam. Representative Coker and Senator Tim Lang described the bill as a cleanup measure to make a COVID-era online process permanent and said it would improve convenience and keep more revenue in New Hampshire. Tom Praol, representing the vendor, said the state lost significant revenue when the online option ended and argued that online proctoring can verify identity and prevent cheating. The New Hampshire Marine Trades Association supported the bill, saying it would help boaters learn New Hampshire-specific laws and keep dollars in-state. The Department of Safety Marine Patrol was neutral: Captain Tim Dunlvy said the current system includes classroom and online coursework followed by an in-person proctored final exam, and he raised concerns about safety, exam integrity, and lower scores in computer-only testing, while noting New Hampshire’s strong boating safety record. Committee members asked about reciprocity, proctoring methods, costs, and crash data, but no vote was taken in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• it breaks down between uh MCO and um fee it breaks down between uh MCO and um fee for<00:09:12.160
• How much is the dispensing fee paid to pharmacies?
• The average dispensing fee per prescription is $109.
• > per The average dispensing fee per The average dispensing fee per prescription<00:14:44.320>
• GLP-1 shortages and allocation challenges have already occurred.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Medicaid Oversight and Advisory Board met on February 23, 2026, approved the January 12 minutes, and then focused primarily on Kentucky Medicaid’s coverage and potential expansion of GLP-1 drugs, especially for weight loss. Department for Medicaid Services Commissioner Lisa Lee explained that Medicaid currently does not cover drugs for weight loss, anorexia, or weight gain, but the department had filed a regulation to remove that blanket exclusion so GLP-1s could be covered when used for an underlying health condition. She said the administrative regulation review subcommittee found the regulation deficient, and the co-chairs wanted the board to discuss the policy and financing implications before any change. DMS also said it would be open to adding caveats to ensure coverage would not extend to cosmetic weight loss alone. The department provided several data points on current utilization and spending. In 2025, Kentucky Medicaid paid for appetite-stimulating drugs such as Megestrol, Dronabinol, and Marinol, but did not pay for weight-loss drugs. For GLP-1s, DMS said coverage began in 2025 and is limited to FDA-approved medical conditions, with prior authorization requiring a type 2 diabetes diagnosis code and A1C documentation. DMS reported $234.6 million in GLP-1 spending in 2025 before rebates, about 240,931 prescriptions, and said GLP-1s accounted for 7.3% of pharmacy spend in 2024 and 8.3% in 2025. It also said there were 24,844 expansion members and 13,638 non-expansion members using GLP-1s, with spending of about $156 million and $78.5 million respectively, and that 10 pediatric weight-loss prescriptions were covered under EPSDT. The department said outcome analyses, including whether GLP-1 use reduces insulin or other diabetes treatment, are underway and should be completed in a couple of months. Members asked about cost, rebates, and whether the state should wait for more outcomes data before expanding coverage. DMS said average reimbursement to pharmacies was $975 per prescription and the average dispensing fee was $109; it also said 2025 rebate invoices totaled $90.8 million, with $7.6 million collected so far. Several members expressed concern about the high cost and the need to evaluate whether the drugs improve health outcomes before expanding access, while others noted the potential benefits for obesity and diabetes treatment. Some members also discussed whether GLP-1s are effectively being used for weight loss in diabetic patients and whether broader data collection should be used to assess long-term value. After the Medicaid discussion, Eli Lilly executive Tracy Sims presented on obesity as a chronic disease and the economic burden it creates in Kentucky. She said Kentucky’s adult obesity rate is a little over 37%, that obesity is linked to about 200 diseases, and that untreated obesity costs the state billions in GDP and hundreds of millions in state budget impact. She highlighted recent federal access programs for GLP-1s, including a Medicaid-related program that she said could lower the state share of a Zepbound prescription to about $71 per month after federal matching. No votes were taken on the GLP-1 policy question during the meeting, and the main action was the receipt of testimony and discussion of the department’s proposed regulatory change.

Transcript Highlights:

• and student tuition and fees, which in fact they have been giving money, from what I understand, to
• in their fees and um the<01:09:18.600> student<01:09:19.400> tuition<01:09:19.759>
• and fees, which in the student tuition and fees, which in fact<01:09:21.160> they<01:09:21.279
• financing it and state, instead of the general fund, that it'll be from the UH tuition and special fees
• <02:45:06.480> and replace it with UH tuition fees and replace it with UH tuition fees and

Bills: HB1890, HB1888, HB1676

Keywords: teacher pay, teacher salaries, salary step increase, annual increment, longevity step, public school teachers, public charter school teachers, collective bargaining, Hawaii Department of Education, teacher retention, teacher recruitment, cost of living, educator compensation, public employee bargaining, appropriation, salary schedule, school staffing, teacher shortage, HB1888, Hawaii

Summary: The committees heard three measures, beginning with HB 1890 HD3, which would provide automatic step increases and a COVID-era retention bonus for teachers. Supporters included HSTA, the Democratic Party’s Education Caucus, and a student who said higher pay and predictable salary growth would help retain teachers in Hawaii. The Department of Education supported the intent but asked that the bill be expanded to cover all department employees. The Attorney General’s office said the draft needed clarification to avoid conflict with Chapter 89 and to make clear any funding was subject to legislative appropriation. The Office of the Public Defender and B&F testified in opposition, and committee members questioned whether the step increases were already in the current contract and whether the bill was needed. HSTA said the current contract includes automatic step increases subject to funding, but argued the bill was still needed because funding is not guaranteed and the measure would codify the policy. HSTA also said the COVID bonus would apply only to active teachers who worked during the pandemic and estimated the total cost at roughly $150 million to $200 million over four years. No vote was taken in the portion provided. The committee then took up HB 1888 HD3, which would require DOE and charter schools to report harassment incidents and strengthen penalties for harassment of educational workers from a petty misdemeanor to a misdemeanor. DOE supported the bill and suggested narrowing language about assisting workers with temporary restraining orders, saying that function would be better handled through the Attorney General’s pilot program. The Office of the Public Defender opposed the bill, arguing the harassment language was overly broad, vague, and potentially unconstitutional, and that existing assault and terroristic threatening statutes already protect educational workers. HSTA, the State Commission on the Status of Women, and several individual testifiers supported the measure, describing increased intimidation and harassment of teachers and other school staff, especially since COVID. The Special Education Advisory Council opposed the bill’s language on “disrupting and interfering” with school functions, saying it could chill parents of students with IEPs from advocating for their children. Testimony was split, with the chair noting 20 in support and 16 in opposition in the portion shown. A final witness, Michelle Pestana, testified in opposition based on her family’s experience with special education services, describing alleged seclusion and restraint of her daughter and expressing concern that DOE testimony in prior hearings had targeted special education parents. Her remarks were cut off as time expired. The transcript ends before any committee action or vote on HB 1888 was taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• the floodway, the 100-year and 500-year chance for flood hazard zones, and a breakdown of how we allocated
• We allocated 1.5 million in ARPA funds for culvert improvements throughout the City of Burlington.
• Allocate resources and coordinate their efforts more effectively, improving response times and efficiency
• There's a fair market value to fees, but I would argue the safety of your community is worth gathering
• So if there was a way to that, that could. or something that we could then allocate resources Thank you

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, the issue of the fee or tax that it may create.
• I would be happy to take it out, but I don't know where the fee or tax is.
• Um, I don't want to speak to the clerk's ruling on the 50K, but if it is a tax or fee in there, then
• So, if you find the fee, um, I don't think 504 is out of place right now.
• , So, if you find the fee, So, if you find the fee, um<00:33:10.920> I<00:33:11.080> I<

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The meeting began as a Committee of Conference on House Bill 194, but the discussion quickly centered on whether to remove an attached bill, 504, because of concerns about a possible fee or tax and a House rule issue. Members debated the procedural posture of the bill, whether the House version had been non-concurred, and whether the conference committee could still resolve the issue by adopting the House amendment or reconsidering the non-concur. The exchange became tense, with one side warning that failing to pass the measure could jeopardize a linked rural health transformation grant worth about $20 million. The committee ultimately recessed without resolving the 194/504 dispute and planned to return the next day. The committee then opened conference on House Bill 609, which dealt with use-of-force/self-defense language and restraint/seclusion authority in health care settings. On the self-defense portion, House members argued strongly for restoring vehicle language, saying people should be able to defend themselves in a car the same way they can in a home, especially in carjacking or assault situations where no weapon is displayed. Senate members expressed concern about expanding deadly-force protections too broadly and suggested narrowing the language to focus on imminent harm to the person, not property, while also questioning where the provision should be placed in statute. The second major topic in HB 609 was who may order restraint or seclusion in clinical settings. House members argued that physicians are not always immediately available, especially in hospitals and emergency settings, and that APRNs and physician associates should be able to act in crises if properly trained and credentialed. Senate members raised concerns about scope of practice and asked whether the language implied patient consent was required; the Senate side explained that consent language was intended to address capacity and informed decision-making, not to require voluntary consent to restraint. The discussion ended with the sides still apart, though the Senate floated a compromise allowing physician associates to order restraint when no doctor is physically on the premises, while not yet extending that authority to APRNs. The committee took a short break to continue negotiations on the firearm/self-defense piece.

Transcript Highlights:

• There is still a fee involved, but it's a much more reduced fee.
• So six months for New York—that was the longest one—and the fees are all different.
• statute, and it gives us the authority to do administrative fees.
• In 2018, CPA retired status was adopted by... authorize the fee because that's it may authorize the fee
• <04:00:22.239> for that if we don't collect fee for that if we don't collect fee for this<

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held public hearings on House Bill 144 and House Bill 145, both related to professional licensing for dietitians and dental hygienists. HB 144 was described as a technical fix to align statute with existing Board of Dental Examiners rules allowing dental hygienists to administer nitrous oxide and local anesthesia, with supporters saying the bill would add needed training and examination requirements to statute. A dentist and dental society representative testified that the practice is already being done safely within scope, and committee members discussed whether nitrous oxide is still used and whether the bill was mainly to keep the paperwork and law consistent. The committee moved HB 144 forward on a 12-0 vote and placed it on consent. HB 145 would join New Hampshire to a dietitian licensure compact and add a criminal history check for initial licensure to match compact language. The sponsor and board witnesses said the compact would improve portability, support telehealth, help military families and spouses, and maintain public safety by ensuring qualified practitioners and information-sharing among member states. Committee members asked about withdrawal from the compact, the difference between single-state and compact licensure, and why a background check was included; the witness said the compact is not yet active, with four states enacted and seven needed, and that the background check is required by the compact language. Additional testimony from a private-practice dietitian supported the bill, citing continuity of care, rural access, and workforce mobility, while some members raised concerns about telehealth across state lines and the practical effect of the background check.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there already $250 million that has already been allocated for this? They're continuing.
• They didn't structure it properly where they allocated the eight hours for overtime.
• a hypothetical discount is proposed, after discount has been applied, or after all related costs, fees

Keywords: 1146, all

Transcript Highlights:

• may be able to pursue that education at MassArt, even though it doesn't fall within the DCF tuition fee
• In 2021, the state first allocated $16.5 million in American Rescue Plan Act funds specifically for this
• In 2021, the state first allocated $16.5 million in American Rescue Plan Act funds specifically for this

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Children, Families, and Persons with Disabilities heard testimony on a wide range of bills affecting foster youth, child welfare oversight, homelessness services, juvenile justice, social work licensure, and human services workforce supports. Committee co-chairs Senator Robyn Kennedy and Representative Jay Livingstone opened the hybrid hearing by outlining testimony procedures and accessibility measures. Several members and legislators participated throughout the day, and many witnesses were invited to submit additional written testimony after speaking. A major portion of the hearing focused on House 227/Senate 105, which would protect federal benefits owed to children in foster care. Supporters, including advocates from Hopewell, the Disability Law Center, CPCS, the Children’s Law Center, More Than Words, Friends of Children, and youth witness Onyx Rosario, said DCF had already ended the practice of taking most Social Security and SSI benefits and now conserves them in accounts for youth, but argued the policy should be codified to prevent future reversals. Witnesses described how conserved benefits help with basic needs, housing, education, transportation, and transition to adulthood, and several noted the bill also adds financial literacy and transparency requirements. Senator Joan Comerford and others said the change would protect vulnerable youth, especially children of color, LGBTQ youth, and youth with disabilities. The committee also heard testimony on House 225, which would expand the grandparents-raising-grandchildren commission by adding appointments and helping with quorum and representation. The committee also took testimony on Senate 136, which would improve emergency housing assistance for families experiencing homelessness by easing documentation requirements, allowing use of existing state data to verify eligibility, requiring notice before benefit reductions, and creating an ombudsperson. Senator Adam Gomez and other supporters said the bill would reduce barriers for families in crisis. On House 262/Senate 148, an omnibus child welfare bill, witnesses supported provisions on data reporting, education coordination, and Office of the Child Advocate reforms, while CPCS raised concerns about expanded access to sensitive records and the OCA’s role in certain proceedings. The Office of the Child Advocate supported codifying current practices and also backed child fatality review changes in House 234/Senate 133. The committee additionally heard support for Senate 108, which would require attorneys and audio/video recording during juvenile custodial interrogations, and for House 247/Senate 116, which would update the Juvenile Justice Policy and Data Board to add supported lived-experience seats. Finally, the committee heard competing testimony on Senate 135, a bill to ensure parity in social work licensure. SEIU Local 509 and supporters argued the current exam requirement disproportionately harms Black, Latino, multilingual, and multicultural applicants and worsens workforce shortages, while the Association of Social Work Boards opposed the bill, saying the exam is a necessary public-protection measure and that removing it would conflict with interstate compact efforts. The hearing also included testimony in support of a loan repayment program for human service workers, with providers and workers describing low wages, high student debt, and the need to retain staff in essential services. No votes or final committee actions were taken during the hearing itself.

Transcript Highlights:

• It establishes a commission of experts and stakeholders and allocates $250,000 for that commission to
• Design, engineering, and consultant fees, all of which need to be financed up front, can exceed the hard
• This issue has been gaining momentum in recent years, and as I noted, you kind of allocated some funding

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing opened a hybrid hearing focused on housing production bills, with Chairs Julian Cyr and Rich Haggerty emphasizing Massachusetts’ housing shortage and the need to produce more than 200,000 units over the next decade. The committee then heard testimony on a wide range of proposals, including social housing, starter homes and the “missing middle,” accessory dwelling units (ADUs), single-stair residential buildings, permanent affordability homeownership, and housing for people with disabilities. Several witnesses framed the bills as tools to expand supply, lower costs, and address racial and generational wealth gaps. Representative Connolly testified for H. 1478 on the Massachusetts Social Housing Program, describing publicly owned, mixed-income housing financed through a revolving loan fund. Senator Feeney testified for S. 989 on missing middle starter homes, arguing for zoning changes, incentives, and affordability tools to support smaller starter homes and duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. Multiple witnesses, including housing advocates, real estate representatives, and local officials, supported the ADU trust fund bill and the single-stair study bill, saying they would reduce barriers, support homeowners, and enable more family-sized and infill housing. Some witnesses opposed bills they said would weaken ADU reforms or add new restrictions, while others urged broader deregulation to speed production. A major portion of the hearing focused on H. 1576/S. 1010, the Homes for Lasting Affordability bill, which would create a permanent affordability homeownership program for low- and moderate-income buyers and support small developments with long-term affordability restrictions. Testimony from community land trust leaders, legislators, and housing advocates emphasized that permanent affordability can preserve public investment, stabilize neighborhoods, and help families build wealth over generations. Senator Miranda and Representative Worrell tied the bill to closing the racial wealth gap and expanding access to homeownership for Black and Latino residents. The committee also heard testimony on S. 971, which would reform the Housing Development and Incentive Program to require more affordability in Gateway City projects. The committee additionally heard from Senator Kennedy and disability advocates on S. 1004, which would strengthen the Alternative Housing Voucher Program for people with disabilities by codifying project-based vouchers and aligning the program more closely with other voucher systems. Witnesses described long waitlists and the lack of accessible, affordable units as major barriers that can lead to homelessness or unnecessary institutionalization. No votes were taken during the hearing; the session was devoted to testimony and questions from committee members.

Transcript Highlights:

• those pieces that are really necessary to the operations of the whole organization and should be allocated
• Costs already cannot exceed tuition, fees, books, and supplies.
• The Scholars Program in 2017, when there was the allocation, those funds were reduced, and we've been

Summary: The committee reconvened at North Dakota State College of Science for a presentation from President Dr. Flanagan and college leaders about NDSCS’s mission, enrollment growth, workforce training, and facilities needs. Flanagan highlighted student success in national competitions, strong placement and retention, growing enrollment, and new or expanding programs in aviation maintenance, fire science, dental hygiene, community health worker training, surgical technology, HVAC/plumbing, and precision agriculture. He also emphasized the college’s partnerships with industry, including John Deere, Fargo Jet Center, Sanford, and Comdel Innovation, and said NDSCS plans to seek approval next session for a revenue bond to build a new dorm and to remodel the library into academic and allied health space. Allied health dean Deb Smith testified that her division is at capacity and needs a simulation center, more lab and classroom space, and expanded dental and OTA facilities to meet demand and accreditation needs. Committee members questioned Flanagan and staff about workforce shortages, especially faculty pay, and whether the college can staff additional growth. Flanagan said the biggest challenge is recruiting instructors because industry pays more, but noted some health care and adjunct hiring is possible because of schedule flexibility and benefits. He also discussed shifting resources away from lower-demand programs like power sports toward higher-demand areas such as automotive and aviation maintenance. Members also asked about the college’s identity as a technical institution, with Flanagan arguing North Dakota would benefit from a more defined tech-school system. The committee then received a University System presentation from Jamie Wilkie on the cost of delivering dual credit. Wilkie explained the methodology used to allocate direct and overhead costs across subsidized and unsubsidized dual credit, noting that dual credit and early entry account for about 5.9% of total credit hours and 2.7% of formula funding. The analysis showed subsidized dual credit tuition revenue of about $5.5 million and unsubsidized revenue of about $2.9 million, with some institutions showing margins and others losses depending on the model. Members discussed whether K-12 funding should also be reflected, how payments to high schools and teachers are structured, and whether tuition-free dual credit would require replacing both tuition revenue and the current dual credit scholarship. No votes were taken; the committee simply received the presentations and discussed the findings.

Transcript Highlights:

• those pieces that are really necessary to the operations of the whole organization and should be allocated
• Costs already cannot—we can't exceed tuition, fees, books, and supplies.
• The Scholars Program in 2017, when there was the allocation, those funds were reduced, and we've been

Summary: The committee met at North Dakota State College of Science for a presentation from President Flanagan and campus leaders on the college’s mission, enrollment growth, workforce programs, facilities needs, and industry partnerships. Flanagan highlighted student success in national competitions, strong placement and retention, the college’s strategic plan, and new or expanding programs such as aviation maintenance, fire science, dental hygiene, community health worker, surgical technology, HVAC/plumbing, and precision agriculture. He also described the need for a new dorm and a remodel of the library into academic and allied health space, including a simulation center, to address capacity limits and support growth. Several committee members asked about program demand, faculty recruitment, pay competitiveness, and how the college shifts resources from lower-demand programs to high-demand ones. Industry partner Jim Albright of Comdell testified that the college has been essential to the local manufacturing workforce and that many employees and interns come from NDSCS. A major topic was dual credit. Flanagan said dual credit is important but financially challenging, noting that only a small share of dual credit students ultimately matriculate to NDSCS and that the college’s dual credit model is close to break-even. He explained that many dual credit credits are general education rather than CTE, and that the college pays instructors, supports high schools, and absorbs indirect costs. Williston State College President Bernal Herning added that his institution loses money on the front end but has shifted toward helping students complete associate degrees before high school graduation because many go directly to work after high school. Committee members questioned how dual credit is delivered, how instructors are qualified, and whether students are truly doing college-level work. The committee then received a University System presentation from Jamie Wilkie on the cost of delivering dual credit statewide. Wilkie explained the methodology used to allocate direct and overhead costs and said the analysis shows dual credit is not profitable at several institutions once tuition, instructor payments, and overhead are included. Members asked how much of the cost is borne by students, families, and the state, and whether K-12 funding should also be considered. Discussion also covered the difference between subsidized and unsubsidized dual credit, payments to high school teachers or schools, and the possibility of waiving tuition in the future. No votes were taken, and the committee mainly gathered information for the ongoing dual credit cost study.

Transcript Highlights:

• One being the fees.
• The electrical inspection fees, we can charge some, but not all of them. It’s kind of weird.
• consistent with all the other fees that we’re doing.
• to our office and we could charge a fee to our office and we could charge a fee to<01:28:58.080>
• of overhead costs, it proper allocation of overhead costs, it distributes<04:54:22.878> capital

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 00:07:53.880> to branch is not permitted to use or to branch is not permitted to use or to allocate
• allocate, for example, a .gov email. allocate, for example, a .gov email.
• it's in cash, but if you do your credit card, you're going to have your whatever percent processing fee
• 45:12.480> card<00:45:12.840> tapped<00:45:13.240> on<00:45:13.520> and fee
• for the credit card tapped on and fee for the credit card tapped on and all<00:45:13.840> of<

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• your restitution paid right now under statute, you need to file a separate case and pay that filing fee
• /c><00:46:21.599> pay<00:46:21.760> that<00:46:22.000> filing<00:46:22.400> fee
• separate case and pay that filing fee. separate case and pay that filing fee.
• with people stealing money that<01:37:49.119> we<01:37:49.360> have<01:37:49.679> allocated
• that we have allocated to help people. that we have allocated to help people.

Bills: HF3874, HF3875, HF3378

Keywords: judicial funding, Chief Justice security, fiscal year 2028, court system, judicial branch, judiciary, court notices, restitution, child protection, publication process, human services, Optum reports, data privacy, transparency, legislative oversight, 1183, house

Summary: The committee approved the March 3 minutes and then heard a presentation from the Minnesota Judicial Branch on House File 3874, which was laid over for possible inclusion in a finance bill. State Court Administrator Jeff Shorba and Chief Judge Michael Fritz testified in support of a supplemental funding request focused on judicial branch safety and security, along with funding to cover the employer share of Minnesota Paid Leave costs. Shorba said the branch is seeking help because it did not receive funding for paid leave in the last session and is having to hold positions open to absorb the cost. The safety and security request included five parts: personal data protection for judges and court administrators, home security, two additional staff positions for threat assessment and coordination, security for the chief justice at public events, and a revived courthouse security grant program for counties. Testimony emphasized rising threats and incidents involving judges and court staff, including examples of doxing, home surveillance, and threats involving litigants, and cited increases in reported incidents, threats, and disturbances. Fritz said the branch’s current response system is stretched and that more law-enforcement-trained staff would improve coordination and response. Members questioned why the judicial branch should receive state funding for paid leave when private employers must absorb the cost, and Shorba responded that the branch was excluded from end-of-session funding decisions and that the mandate should be funded for all branches of government. Members also asked about the threat-response process and whether local law enforcement should be used more directly. Another concern raised was whether State Patrol troopers assigned to judicial security would have the training needed for criminal-code enforcement, and Shorba said the branch is discussing that issue with the State Patrol. No vote on the bill was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The administrative costs are modest and expected to be covered in part by program fees, making this a
• 51:11.920> program expected to cover in part by program expected to cover in part by program fees
• 13.839> this<00:51:14.240> a<00:51:14.559> responsible<00:51:15.520> step fees
• , making this a responsible step fees, making this a responsible step forward. forward. forward.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Housing Committee opened with a public hearing on HB 196, which would repeal the Housing Champion program. Representative Matt Drew, the prime sponsor, argued the program is an unnecessary and poorly targeted subsidy, saying it rewards municipalities after projects are completed and may not be limited to new housing production. He questioned the transparency of the program, cited difficulty finding required annual reports, and noted a fiscal note suggesting the state could recover up to $3 million if obligations are terminated. Committee members and witnesses debated whether the program’s criteria amount to political favoritism or a standard grant process; supporters said the rubric is specific and that municipalities are evaluated against objective requirements. Representative Priest, Nick Taylor of Housing Action New Hampshire, and Karen Benfield of Stay Work Play New Hampshire all opposed repeal, saying the program encourages local zoning and regulatory changes, helps smaller communities participate, and supports housing supply and young people’s ability to stay in the state. The hearing on HB 196 was then closed. The committee then opened a hearing on HB 1405, a bill establishing an affordable housing guarantee program within the Housing Finance Authority. Prime sponsor Representative Chris Muns said the bill would reduce lender risk by guaranteeing up to 80% of principal on qualifying loans for affordable housing, with a cap of $30 million per lender per year and $300 million outstanding at any time. He described the measure as a low-cost public-private partnership backed by the full faith and credit of the state, and said it was identical to a prior Senate bill that had received unanimous bipartisan committee support before dying later in the process. He framed the bill as one part of a broader housing package aimed at financing, infrastructure, workforce, zoning reform, and other housing-related issues. No votes were taken during the portion of the meeting provided. The only formal actions were opening and closing the public hearing on HB 196 and opening the public hearing on HB 1405, with testimony continuing on HB 1405 at the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with time equally allocated between the parties
• 00:05:38.639> with<00:05:38.960> time<00:05:39.199> equally<00:05:39.680> allocated
• parties with time equally allocated parties with time equally allocated between<00:05:40.400>
• :21.920> seekers<03:06:22.319> and increases fees on asylum seekers and increases fees
• <04:39:22.879> to billion dollars already allocated to billion dollars already allocated to

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Wednesday, June 4, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This money could be allocated to more pertinent locating training, installation of safeguards, and the
• our Network damages this money could of our Network damages this money could be<00:40:26.240> allocated
• So if we have to run them through 40 hours of training before they can even start working, pay the fees
• So if we have to run them through 40 hours of training before they can even start working, pay the fees
• You here are would allocate $5 million.

Bills: HF47, HF335

Keywords: telecommunications, installation, certification, safety, underground utilities, HF335, Greater Minnesota, economic development, public infrastructure, grant program, DEED, Department of Employment and Economic Development, business development, infrastructure grants, local government aid, general fund appropriation, rural development, site development, utilities, roads

Bills: SB27, SB8, SB15, SB30, SB268, SB568, SB650, SB1405, SB1540, SB1610, SB1637, SB1660, SB2024, SB2217, SB2308, SB2753, SB2878, SB2900, SB2972, SB3059, HB4, HB40, HB46, HB119, HB145, HB493, HB705, HB1545, HB2017, HB2516, HB2885, HB2963, HB2974, HB3642, HB3909, HB5138, HB5246, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SCR12, SCR39, SB2023, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB507, SB1434, SB1772, SB2016, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB1200, SB1845, SB2458, SB801, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB2797, SB2076, SB2876, SB1640, SB1449, SB1181, SB1234, SB2926, SB2841, SB1528, SB1854, SB317, SB1250, SB2082, SB1237, SB2819, SB629, SB2608, SB1602, SB2009, SB867, SB640, SB1698, SB2680, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB2334, SB1367, SB2044, SB2363, SB2565, SB1888, SB3036, SB3057, SB3043, SB3063, SB3035, SB203, SB2688, SB2522, SB2459, SB2655, SB2251, SB1884, SB2928, SB2566, SB2549, SB2553, SB2919, SB1944, SB1232, SB1798, SB2603, SB2607, SB2683, SB1319, SB3045, SB3071, HB796, HB1523, HB5294, HB748, HB3395, HB180, HB3171, HB146, HB5596, HB5694, HB1135, HB3225, HB186, HB1449, HB3793, HB112, HB104, HB3336, HB3520, HB3320, HB5663, HB2399, HB111, HB3483, HB4580, HB3748, HB632, HB4730, HB5690, HB5689, HB3385, HB4359, HB5381, HB123, HB5606, HB1057, HB3664, HCR141, HCR40, HCR59

Keywords: immigration enforcement, ICE agreements, sheriff grants, law enforcement, county jail, federal immigration law, SB 15, Texas Local Government Code, zoning preemption, housing affordability, small lots, lot size, lot density, single-family zoning, residential subdivision, municipal land use, local control, state preemption, parking requirements, setbacks

Transcript Highlights:

• There are various fee-for-service models available that are results-based.
• So the fee-for-service models are arranged between the hospital and the private ambulance services.
• It will ultimately mean multiple parking fees, days off work, time taken away from your children, and
• MassHealth fee-for-service has to provide this because it was included in the 2000 law.
• Just families... ...and they simply can't afford the doula out-of-pocket fee.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Financial Services held a lengthy public hearing with testimony on a wide range of health insurance and access-to-care bills. Early testimony focused on prescription drug pricing and pharmacy reimbursement, with supporters of H. 1326 arguing that pharmacy benefit managers and MassHealth managed care arrangements reimburse independent pharmacies too little, contributing to pharmacy closures and “pharmacy deserts.” The committee also heard repeated support for H. 1151/S. 742 on cognitive rehabilitation for acquired brain injury, H. 1288/S. 716 on telehealth parity for nutrition counseling, H. 1309/S. 761 on full-spectrum pregnancy care without cost-sharing, H. 1312 on insurance coverage for doula services, H. 309 on prompt access to health care by removing deductibles for certain services, H. 809/H. 1227 on biomarker testing, H. 1162/S. 810 on reducing inequities in access to medical procedures by limiting insurer cuts tied to Modifier 25, and S. 726 on insurance coverage for mobile integrated health. Testifiers included legislators, physicians, pharmacists, dietitians, emergency and rehabilitation clinicians, and patients and family members. Supporters of the brain injury bill said cognitive rehabilitation is medically necessary, improves long-term outcomes, and can reduce institutional care and public costs; they noted the bill has been heard repeatedly and has support from the Brain Injury Commission and prior favorable committee action. Supporters of the pregnancy care and doula bills described out-of-pocket costs as a barrier to maternal health and shared personal stories of high bills and unmet support needs. Biomarker testing advocates and cancer patients said coverage gaps deny patients access to precision treatment, can lead to avoidable suffering, and should be standardized across insurers; several speakers said insurers often deny claims despite clinical benefit. Dermatology witnesses said insurers’ use of Modifier 25 cuts reimbursement for same-day evaluation and procedure visits, forcing separate appointments and increasing patient burden. Mobile integrated health supporters described home-based care as a way to reduce emergency department use and hospital readmissions, especially for patients with transportation or mobility barriers. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the hearing itself.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, that along with any fee revenue other than that, it was unspecified in terms of, you know, specific
• Uh that along with um any any fee<00:53:07.760> revenue<00:53:08.319> other<00:53:08.559
• > than<00:53:08.720> that<00:53:09.200> it<00:53:09.440> was fee revenue
• took care of the agency increase<00:53:30.640> um<00:53:30.800> the<00:53:31.119> fee
• increases and and increase um the fee increases and and all<00:53:32.559> those<00:53:32.720>

Keywords: 1183, house