Transcript Highlights:

• Again, we support agritourism.
• Again, we support agritourism.
• Again, we support agritourism.
• written testimony in support. written testimony in support.
• testimony in support. testimony in support.

Bills: HB1979

Keywords: environmental review, affordable housing, clean energy, judicial proceedings, public participation, Hawaii Revised Statutes, 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 1979 HD3, which would shorten the time to file certain judicial challenges to environmental assessments and environmental impact statements for affordable housing and clean energy projects, and would also affect transfer of some environmental court appeals to the Supreme Court. The Office of Planning and Sustainable Development supported the amended bill, saying the changes were improved from earlier versions and that the shorter filing period was reasonable for these priority projects. Hawaii Gas asked that the bill’s clean energy definition be broadened to align with existing renewable energy law so emerging technologies like renewable hydrogen and renewable gas would be included. Kauai Island Utility Co-op and Greenpeace Hawaii testified in support and opposition, respectively, with supporters arguing the bill would reduce litigation uncertainty and opponents saying the shorter deadline would limit public participation and not solve the real causes of project delays. Opposition testimony came from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Earthjustice, Sierra Club, 350 Hawaii, and others, who argued the bill could chill legitimate public-interest claims, especially where there is limited public notice, and that environmental review was being unfairly blamed for delays caused by permitting, financing, or infrastructure problems. Several speakers said the measure would reduce transparency and make it harder for communities to respond in time. One testifier from Earthjustice said the environmental review process itself is not the problem and should not be weakened for projects that still need public disclosure and community engagement. The committee then moved to decision-making and, citing the volume of opposition and concerns about public participation, transparency, and whether the bill would actually improve timelines, the chair deferred HB 1979 HD3 indefinitely. The hearing was adjourned after the vote decision was announced. The transcript then shifted to HB 2585, relating to tourism and statewide standards for agritourism. Testimony was mixed: farmers and agricultural groups described agritourism as essential to keeping small farms and ranches viable, while also urging safeguards so it would not be abused or displace real agricultural production. Some speakers warned the bill’s revenue-based limits could unintentionally shut down existing farm stays and related operations, especially in Maui County. The Hawaii Farm Bureau said it supported the intent but wanted clearer protections for bona fide agriculture and more flexibility around revenue requirements and force majeure situations. The discussion was still underway when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• days or decades, we honor and support days or decades, we honor and support every<00:11:04.240><
• or support program to uh support or support program integrity.<00:27:28.880> Uh<00:27:29.200><
• gave money to supportive housing. gave money to supportive housing.
• So, members, please join me today in supporting the funding for that stable support.
• So, members, please join me today in supporting the funding for that stable support.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• support program. Again, Lisa Decatowski. support program. Again, Lisa Decatowski.
• <00:51:54.800> The<00:51:54.960> child<00:51:55.119> support support program
• The child support support program.
• Um and to financial support needs.
• So that's why I support the motion. So that's why I support the motion.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That supports our agency strategies and programs.
• We're grateful for the continuing funding and your support.
• So RSEA certainly supports and appreciates those.
• We appreciate your support.
• We appreciate your support. Spend more money.

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee heard budget presentations for the Texas Historical Commission, the Pension Review Board, the Employees Retirement System (ERS), Social Security and benefit replacement pay, the Texas Emergency Services Retirement System (TESSRS), and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT). The Legislative Budget Board outlined recommendations and major changes for each agency, including reductions tied to one-time projects at the Historical Commission, continued funding for courthouse grants, heritage trails, and Holocaust/genocide education, as well as new or modified riders and capital items. For the pension-related items, LBB described funding changes for PRB, ERS, Social Security, and TESSRS, including ERS health plan cost growth driven largely by pharmacy costs, the status of pension funding reforms, and TESSRS’s request for additional state support to address its unfunded liability and staffing needs. Members asked extensive questions about the Historical Commission’s one-time funding, unexpended balance authority, courthouse preservation, the Presidio La Bahia and National Museum of the Pacific War projects, and coordination of Texas history messaging across sites such as the Alamo, San Jacinto, Washington on the Brazos, and other heritage locations. The Historical Commission chair emphasized heritage tourism, economic development, and the need for continued investment in historic sites, staffing, IT modernization, and vehicles. On the pension items, senators discussed PRB oversight of local systems, including the Dallas police and fire pension situation, and ERS investment returns, benchmark comparisons, and rising health costs. ERS officials said the plan remains well funded overall, noted a 2021 cash balance reform and a planned supplemental legacy payment, and explained that GLP-1 drugs such as Ozempic and Mounjaro are a major driver of pharmacy spending; they also said the agency is working with the Texas Pharmacy Initiative and that rebates are contractually returned to ERS. For TESSRS, LBB and agency staff said the system serves volunteer and part-paid emergency personnel, is facing an infinite amortization period, and is requesting additional appropriations, staffing, and IT funding, along with a statutory change to allow an actuarially determined state contribution. The agency said it may otherwise need to cut benefits for volunteer firefighters. For CPRIT, LBB reported about $600 million in recommended funding for the biennium and a 10-FTE increase, while the agency described its $6 billion voter-approved program, $3.75 billion in grants awarded to date, and $10.4 million in revenue sharing since 2011. CPRIT’s only exceptional item was a request for a 10% salary increase for two exempt positions. No committee votes or formal actions were taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, I'll be supporting ITL. statute. So, I'll be supporting ITL.
• c> fuel<04:47:33.680> production, energy supports instate fuel production, energy supports
• I'll support that.
• Support supports local subsidize you.
• I'll support that. But I'll get level. I'll support that.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm sure there will be some that support it, and there'll be some that don't support it.
• We have cards and support.” “We have cards and support wishing to speak.
• I just told him I would support the amendment if he would support the bill. All right.
• They close remotely.
• All in support. Wishing to speak and John West. John. Waves speaking in support.

Keywords: 965, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm sure there will be some that support it, and there'll be some that don't support it.
• We have cards and support.” “We have cards and support wishing to speak.
• Susie LaBrie in support, not wishing to speak. Larry Harms in support not wishing to speak.
• Susie LaBrie in support, not wishing to speak. Larry Harms in support, not wishing to speak.
• I just told him I would support the amendment if he would support the bill. All right.

Summary: The committee took up public comment on a package of similar local-option bills related to carbon capture and sequestration, including House Bills 5, 6, 497, 498, 501, and 504. The bills would let parishes, or in some cases specific parishes such as Rapides and Livingston, decide by local vote whether Class VI wells, CO2 sequestration, and related pipeline infrastructure could be permitted. The chair grouped the bills together for testimony, adopted a three-minute public comment rule, and noted that the bills were not yet under consideration for a vote during the public-comment portion. Supporters, including Speaker Pro Tem Mike Johnson, parish officials, local activists, and residents, argued that communities affected by carbon capture projects should have a direct voice through local option elections. They said the bills were about self-determination, local control, and allowing residents to decide whether the risks are worth the benefits. Several speakers said their parishes had passed resolutions opposing carbon capture or asking for local choice, while others emphasized concerns about eminent domain, aquifer protection, lack of public understanding, and the need for more information about project impacts and financial benefits. Some supporters also said a local vote would force industry to engage more directly with communities and could improve transparency. Opponents, including representatives of the Department of Conservation and Energy, the Louisiana Chemistry Association, the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, and the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, warned that the bills would create uncertainty, undermine Louisiana’s primacy over Class VI permitting, and invite litigation under federal preemption and the Supremacy Clause. They said the state already has a strict permitting process with public input and technical review, and that allowing parish-by-parish approval could delay or block billions of dollars in investment, jobs, and export-related projects. The department testified that if the state adopted a local-option referendum system, EPA could determine Louisiana was not implementing the program consistently and could move to remove primacy. No committee vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:12:57.200> and and members, uh, for your support and and members, uh, for your support
• support for Senate File 2454 today. support for Senate File 2454 today.
• <00:17:28.720> Senate We strongly urge you to support Senate We strongly urge you to support
• packet a number of letters uh in support packet a number of letters uh in support of<00:20:16.960
• <00:38:25.839> the energy ecosystem that will support the energy ecosystem that will support

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Would you support switching it to DPH or DMH?
• I'm testifying today in robust support of this bill 2219. today in robust support of this bill 2219 S
• I'm here to voice my support for both of these bills.
• MHLAC supports House Bill 2199.
• I’m testifying in support of House Bill 2199.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held its fourth public hearing of the 2025-2026 session on bills dealing with involuntary commitment and access to addiction treatment, especially proposals to move Section 35 civil commitments away from jails and prisons and into facilities licensed or approved by DPH or DMH. Chairs Velis and Domb framed the hearing as a discussion of how to support people in crisis with compassion, while also warning against using involuntary commitment as a way to remove unhoused people from public view. The hearing also touched on related concerns about discharge practices, treatment capacity, and the need for a broader continuum of care. Testimony split largely along two themes. Addiction researcher Keith Humphreys argued that many people enter treatment under pressure, that involuntary treatment can be ethically justified in the face of overdose risk, but that it should not be mandated unless high-quality services exist first; he emphasized the need for inpatient care when someone is a grave danger, followed by case management and outpatient support. MAMH’s Kate Alicante supported the bill, saying Massachusetts is the only state that commits people with substance use conditions to jails or prisons and that carceral settings add trauma and stigma; she pointed to prior legislative steps, including the Section 35 commission and the planned closure of DOC’s MESAC facility, as evidence that the Commonwealth is moving toward health-based settings. A major portion of the hearing focused on Stony Brook, a sheriff-run stabilization and treatment center in Hampden County. Boston City Councilor John Fitzgerald, several committee members, and multiple people in recovery described the facility as humane, well-run, and effective, with longer stays, medical monitoring, medication-assisted treatment, counseling, and warm handoffs to aftercare. Several witnesses said Stony Brook saved their lives or helped family members recover, and they argued that the sheriff’s office model should be expanded rather than eliminated. Others, including family members and advocates, countered that even a well-run correctional setting remains stigmatizing and that people should not be treated in facilities run by sheriffs or corrections when they have committed no crime. No vote was taken. The hearing concluded with continued testimony, including Senator Friedman’s support for Section 35 as a civil commitment tool but not in a criminal justice setting, and her separate support for a bill to speed inpatient mental health treatment.

Transcript Highlights:

• I was a former council member and didn’t support anybody.
• Supporting these councils indifference.
• Burial Council. and we happily support Burial Council. and we happily support his<00:21:32.960><
• We strongly and happily support her nomination. Thank you.
• no support, any testifying whatsoever.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Committee on Hawaiian Affairs heard multiple gubernatorial nominations to island burial councils, with testimony focused on the importance of filling vacancies so the councils can reach quorum and fulfill their kuleana to protect iwi kūpuna and burial sites. For GM 674, Kavuna Khalipi was introduced as OHA’s nominee for the Molokaʻi burial council, with OHA, SHPD, and several community members testifying in support and describing her cultural grounding, community service, and experience in mālama ʻāina. Testifiers also stressed that burial councils are essential for protecting ancestral remains and that prolonged vacancies have left sacred sites vulnerable. Khalipi herself said she was honored to serve but expressed concern about accepting the appointment without quorum, saying she did not want to waste a term if the council could not function effectively. The chair explained the Senate advice-and-consent process and the consequences of inaction, and after discussion Khalipi asked to pull her nomination from the committee. The chair then deferred decision-making on GM 674 until April 10 at 1 p.m. to clarify the process and avoid unintended rejection. The committee then heard testimony on GM 676, Dane Maxwell for the Maui and Lānaʻi burial council, GM 677, Noani Parisa, GM 678, Caroline Hartman, and GM 679, Benedict Duman. Supporters, including SHPD and OHA, highlighted each nominee’s cultural knowledge, preservation work, genealogy, and experience with burial or historic preservation matters. Testimony repeatedly linked the nominations to the need for functioning burial councils, especially in light of the 2023 Maui fires and long-standing vacancies. No votes were taken during the portion of the meeting provided; the chair indicated votes would be taken at the end of the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• one person in support.
• <01:04:37.720> two here online uh we have 47 in support two here online uh we have 47 in support
• I do support the bill, Representative King.
• I do support the bill, Representative King. I do support the bill, Representative King.
• <05:22:29.200> for seven people register their support for seven people register their support

Keywords: 928, house, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

• c> the<00:02:47.920> community supportive of both the community supportive of both the community
• is not to uh find some level of support is not to uh find some level of support uh<00:12:38.160>
• <00:46:28.160> of opportunity to testify in support of opportunity to testify in support of
• > support<00:47:04.560> life staff's two advanced support life staff's two advanced support
• supporting EMS. supporting EMS. do<00:49:01.920> have<00:49:02.079> to<00:49:02.240

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• there can be support for these bills. there can be support for these bills.
• > extension We wholeheartedly support the extension We wholeheartedly support the extension of
• I support this.
• So, I support it. uh cities and others. So, I support it.
• your support for this measure. your support for this measure. Thank<00:48:55.160> you.

Bills: HF3455, HF3936, HF3860, HF3656, HF4060

Keywords: public television, funding, Minnesota, operations, appropriation, cybersecurity, state government, legislative commission, extension, technology, civil law enforcement, attorney general, record custody, government transparency, legal services, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• to vote Yes on this bill to support to vote Yes on this bill to support generational<00:15:46.079
• <00:16:26.399> nor organization neither supporting nor organization neither supporting nor
• So I'd ask for member support.
• <00:36:19.480> in not aware of any bipartisan support in not aware of any bipartisan support
• > in has at this point bipartisan support in has at this point bipartisan support in the<00:56

Bills: HF550

Keywords: redistricting, Bipartisan Commission, Minnesota Constitution, census, legislative districts, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm representing myself, and I'm in support of HB 3225.
• I'm representing myself, and I'm in support of HB3-225.
• I support H.B. 229. Thank you. Males and females have biological differences. I support H.B. 229.
• It does not support families.
• Supporting trans women does not erase me.

Bills: HB186, HB201, HB229, HB796, HB1506, HB2702, HB2885, HB3225, HB3909, HB4285, HB5138

Keywords: social media, children, account verification, data privacy, parental control, financial crime, card fraud, motor fuel theft, law enforcement, criminal activity, skimmers, prevention, training, biological sex, government information, definitions, sex-based distinctions, public health, federal directives, state authority

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 186, which would require social media platforms to verify users are 18 or older before allowing account creation. Invited witnesses in support, including Mary Elizabeth Castle and David Dunmoyer, argued the bill would protect children from harmful algorithms, addictive design, bullying, sexual exploitation, and mental health harms, and emphasized parental rights and the idea that minors should not enter binding contracts with platforms. Committee members questioned them about how algorithms work, whether parents could realistically monitor content, and whether the bill would still allow educational use; the witnesses said the bill was narrowly aimed at harmful social media use and not educational content. Public testimony on HB 186 was largely in opposition, though several student witnesses said they supported the bill’s goals but wanted the age lowered to 16 or the bill amended to allow parental consent or joint accounts. Opponents argued the bill would be ineffective because teens could bypass age checks, would cut off access to educational tools, school communications, recruiting and NIL opportunities, and would burden free speech and privacy. Some witnesses also said social media helps teens with mental health, community, and creative or professional opportunities, while others warned the bill could disproportionately harm disabled and marginalized users. After public testimony closed, HB 186 was left pending. The committee then heard House Bill 5138, which Chairman Hughes said would respond to a court ruling limiting the Attorney General’s authority to prosecute election crimes unless invited by local prosecutors by changing the statute to require AG prosecution. Public testimony on HB 5138 was brief and opposed by at least one witness who argued it would further erode local control and expand state preemption. The bill was left pending after testimony. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 3225, a library bill aimed at keeping sexually explicit books and materials out of children’s sections in municipal libraries and requiring age verification for checkout, including digital access, with parental consent and other revisions added in the House. Supporters said the bill would protect children from explicit material and keep such content in adult sections, while opponents argued it would amount to censorship, be costly and difficult to implement, and could be used to target LGBTQ+ or other marginalized content. Library workers, parents, students, and advocates testified that existing library sections already separate age-appropriate materials and that the bill could reduce access to books, burden libraries, and infringe on parental choice and free expression.

Transcript Highlights:

• Kern County supports the governor's proposal.
• We support Cesar Aguirre's comments and recommendations.
• We also support Assembly Bill 1448, authored by Mr.
• I also want to echo support for Cesar Aguirre's comments and the support for important legislation like
• I also want to echo support for Cesar Aguirres at CCJN's comments and the support for important legislation

Summary: The joint informational hearing of the Assembly Committees on Utilities and Energy, Transportation, and Natural Resources focused on California’s transportation fuels sector, especially the state’s response to refinery closures and the broader transition away from fossil fuels. Opening remarks emphasized the tension between climate and air-quality goals, fuel affordability, refinery jobs and local tax bases, and the need to avoid crisis-driven responses as Phillips 66 and Valero consider shutting refineries in Wilmington and Benicia. Professor Emily Grubert framed the issue as a long-term managed transition in which the public already bears much of the risk and should also capture benefits from a well-planned shift. CARB Chair Leanne Randolph reviewed the state’s emissions and fuel policies, including AB 32, the low-carbon fuel standard, clean vehicle programs, and the at-berth regulation for ocean-going vessels. She said California’s transportation sector remains the largest source of greenhouse gases and a major source of smog-forming pollution, but that the state has made substantial progress and still needs to reduce demand for fossil fuels while maintaining compliance with federal air-quality standards. Randolph also said CARB’s recent LCFS amendments had not caused the predicted spike in gas prices and explained that compliance pathways for the at-berth rule include emissions-reduction technologies or payments into a remediation fund. CEC Vice Chair Gunda described declining gasoline demand, shrinking in-state refining capacity, and growing dependence on imports, arguing that the state is in a “mid-transition” period that requires both support for legacy infrastructure and continued investment in cleaner alternatives. He outlined the administration’s petroleum market stabilization proposal, which aims to return California crude production to 125 million barrels a year through four components: codifying the ban on fracking, validating the Kern County oil-and-gas permitting ordinance, creating a temporary CEQA exemption paired with a two-for-one plug-and-drill framework, and strengthening pipeline and spill-safety requirements. Department of Conservation Director Jennifer Lucasey said the proposal is intended to stabilize crude supply and pipeline throughput while preserving health and environmental protections, and noted that CalGEM would still review permits and enforce other requirements. Mayor Steve Young of Benicia testified that a Valero closure would significantly reduce city revenue and leave the community facing years of cleanup and redevelopment challenges. He said the city supports environmental protection but is worried about the economic hit, the possibility that Benicia becomes a fuel-import terminal, and the lack of local influence over refinery decisions. Members pressed the panel on the CEQA exemption, tribal and habitat review, disclosure of closure liabilities, fuel-demand projections, and whether the proposal should include more demand-side measures. No formal votes were taken; the hearing was informational, and officials said some proposals, including a margin-cap pause and further transition planning, would be taken up later in the process.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we would like to support them in that effort.
• How can we get support?
• I'm a big supporter of LANL.
• So it will certainly support them as well.
• . ...support its increase in mission.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• think there's full support for the idea. think there's full support for the idea.
• Um certain um have credit support.
• I support what has worked with SB 132.
• So please proceed. supported that tariff as a commissioner supported that tariff as a commissioner and
• Um, we may have all support.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think the testimony that I've seen in trial supports that.
• I don’t support gerrymandering or backroom deals behind closed doors, but I also don’t support a system
• citizens I've heard supporting, testifying in support of redistricting, are doing so in hopes that you're
• citizens, I've heard supporting, testifying in support of redistricting are doing so in hopes that you're
• I support this redistricting for that same reason.

Summary: The Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting met virtually for its West Texas regional hearing, established a quorum, and explained that the hearing was part of a series of statewide information-gathering sessions before any map was filed. The chair outlined the Zoom procedures, the two-minute testimony limit, and the availability of written comments through the committee’s public portal. Senators also discussed the logistics and transparency of the process, including the expectation that any proposed map or amendment would be made public once filed and that additional hearings would follow. Senator Blanco, whose district includes West Texas and the border region, said the area’s communities of interest should be kept together and warned against repeating the loss of representation that followed the last redistricting cycle. Senators Alvarado, Hinojosa, Miles, and others debated the value of virtual hearings versus in-person hearings, the number of people who had testified, and whether the committee could subpoena witnesses after the regional hearings ended. The chair said he was awaiting legal guidance and would consider a subpoena motion at a formal meeting the next day. A lengthy exchange also occurred over the tone of public testimony and the chair’s view that some comments directed at Republicans and the president had been offensive or historically inaccurate. Invited witnesses and public commenters largely opposed mid-decade redistricting and argued that any new map should reflect population growth, especially among Latino and other minority communities, and comply with the Voting Rights Act. Nina Perales of MALDEF said the hearings were not meaningful without a draft map and testified that Texas has a long history of discriminatory redistricting; senators questioned her about litigation, DOJ’s July 7 letter, and the 2021 congressional map. Tania Chavez Camacho, Luis Figueroa, and several El Paso residents emphasized that maps should preserve communities of interest, avoid cracking and packing, and be transparent and participatory. A smaller number of witnesses supported redistricting, including one El Paso resident who said the current districting leaves the area underrepresented and another who argued that some communities want to return to a map closer to the earlier District 16 configuration. Several witnesses also criticized the DOJ letter as inconsistent with the state’s position that the 2021 maps were drawn race-blind, while others said the current process was too rushed and lacked sufficient public input.

Transcript Highlights:

• During their studies, summer support, support for being able to go into these counties where there isn't
• So whatever you can do to support that.
• You can also get in a support group.
• And then tech support scams are really big.
• And we have very little support for this.

Keywords: 1184, house, all