Transcript Highlights:

• <00:09:59.600> of services hearing of services hearing of 2025<00:10:01.519> the<00
• Thank you so much for hearing this bill.
• that will come up at a different hearing that will come up at a different hearing thank<00:15:46.759
• <00:46:44.640> the children in child welfare cases the children in child welfare cases the
• Can you hear me okay?

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several measures related to housing, homelessness, caregiving, and tax relief. On HB 431, which appropriates funds for the CAL initiative and HHFDC, the Department of Human Services supported the bill and noted the Governor’s request for $50 million per year for HMS, the need for more permanent supportive housing, and a technical issue with establishing a special fund in session law. The Statewide Office on Homelessness and Housing Solutions strongly supported the measure, describing it as unprecedented funding for CAL projects and linking it to goals of reducing homelessness and expanding housing inventory. Catholic Charities Hawaii, the ACLU of Hawaii, and the Reimagining Public Safety in Hawaii Coalition also supported the bill, emphasizing permanent supportive housing, diversion from jail, and public safety benefits. The chair redirected one testifier to stay on the measure when testimony drifted to another program. Written support was also noted from several organizations and agencies. The committee then heard HB 225 on squatting. DHS said it appreciated the intent and deferred to the Attorney General and task force members, while noting that outreach on public lands differs from private land, where owner consent is required. The Office of the Public Defender supported the bill and wanted a voice in finding a solution. The Statewide Office on Homelessness and Housing Solutions also said it supported the intent, while opposition from the Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands and support from one individual were noted. For HB 280, which would make the community outreach court permanent and appropriate funds, the Judiciary strongly supported the bill, describing the court as a mobile, community-based program serving vulnerable populations and connecting participants to services. The Office of the Public Defender also supported the measure, saying the program has helped people move off the streets and into stable housing and that permanent funding would allow expansion. Written support from the Hawaii Substance Abuse Coalition was noted. The committee then moved to HB 71, creating a refundable family caregiver tax credit, where the Department of Taxation provided comments, the Executive Office on Aging and AARP Hawaii supported the measure, and the Tax Foundation of Hawaii raised concerns about duplication with an existing dependent care credit and the lack of incentives for cost control. The committee next heard HB 753, which would increase the applicable percentage for the household and dependent care services tax credit. Support came from the Executive Office on Aging, Catholic Charities Hawaii, AARP Hawaii, and Hawaii Children’s Action Network, while the Tax Foundation again raised technical concerns about complexity and administration but noted the bill adds guardrails against abuse. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'd like to begin this hearing by setting the context in which the hearing will be conducted and also
• And that same case says it, at least the NBTA case. We'd like citation.
• We are now going to hear from invited testifiers on the matter of government... ...going to hear from
• Next, we will hear virtually from Harriet Richardson.
• And with that, do I hear a motion to close the hearing? Close. Close. Close.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The subcommittee hearing focused on whether the Office of the State Auditor may constitutionally audit the Massachusetts Legislature under Chapter 250 of the Acts of 2024 and what such an audit could include under generally accepted government auditing standards. Chair Cindy Friedman opened by explaining the background: voters approved Ballot Question 1 in November 2024, the law took effect in January 2025, and the Auditor then initiated audits of both chambers. The chair said the subcommittee was seeking expert testimony because the proposed audit scope, constitutionality, and possible bias concerns remained unresolved. Public testimony was invited, but no members of the public pre-registered; written testimony remained open for a short period after the hearing. The hearing then proceeded with invited experts on constitutional law/state government and auditing-related issues. Professor Lawrence Friedman testified that the ballot initiative’s approval by the Attorney General and by voters did not resolve constitutional questions, and he argued Chapter 250 violates the Massachusetts Constitution. He said the Legislature has constitutional authority to set its own rules and manage its proceedings, and that an executive-branch audit would intrude on legislative deliberation, speech and debate protections, and separation of powers. He also warned that even audits of supposedly administrative matters could become a vehicle for repeated document demands and litigation that would indirectly burden legislative functioning. In questioning, senators pressed him on the line between administrative and deliberative functions, the role of the Attorney General versus the courts, the possibility of retroactive audit scope, and whether prior legislative consent to audits mattered; he said prior consent would not bind future legislatures and that constitutionality is ultimately for the courts. Professor Ray La Raja also opposed the audit, framing it as a threat to institutional independence and representative democracy. He argued that allowing an executive-branch official to audit the Legislature without consent would upset separation of powers, chill internal debate, and create a precedent for broader executive intrusion. He said voters often support “transparency” reforms without fully appreciating institutional consequences, and that legislatures should defend their autonomy, especially amid what he described as broader executive overreach nationally. Senators asked about chilling effects, the practical distinction between administrative and core legislative functions, and whether the courts or the Legislature should resolve the issue; he said the courts would ultimately adjudicate disputes, but the Legislature should not waive its constitutional authority lightly. Jean Kempthorne took the opposite view, arguing the audit is permissible and should proceed. She said the state auditor is a constitutional officer accountable directly to the people, that the audit power can be expanded by statute, and that separation of powers does not require watertight compartments. She contended the audit would not displace core legislative powers because the auditor can only evaluate operations, report findings, and make recommendations. She also argued the Legislature itself already conducts audits of other branches, so it is inconsistent to claim an audit of the Legislature is unconstitutional. In response to senators’ questions, she said there are guardrails against truly intrusive requests, but that the administrative-versus-legislative distinction is not a workable bright line; she suggested disputes should be handled case by case, with objections, negotiation, or litigation if specific requests go too far. No votes or formal actions were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• in that case. in that case.
• And see, by 1982 in the Bowling case, the Bowling case did almost what the Clay case did.
• And see, by 1982 in the Bowling case, the Bowling case did almost what the Clay case did.
• the Louisiana case. the Louisiana case.
• no public hearing. no public hearing.

Keywords: 920, all

Summary: The Senate convened with prayer, the pledge, and a roll call establishing a quorum of 35 senators. The journal was adopted without objection, absent senators were excused, and there were no house messages, committee reports, motions, or resolutions before the first bill was called. The main item of business was House Bill 1, described as a conditional measure to set a process for electing U.S. House candidates in Alabama’s congressional districts 1, 2, 6, and 7 if a federal court order lifts current injunctions. The sponsor said the bill would only take effect if the court order is issued and would allow quick compliance with federal rulings. Debate centered on whether the bill was truly responsive to the court or instead an attempt at mid-decade redistricting; opponents argued it would violate Alabama’s constitutional limits on elections and ignore the court’s redistricting orders, while supporters said they were trying to comply with the court and that the issue was partisan rather than personal. Much of the discussion focused on Allen v. Milligan, the Voting Rights Act, and the meaning of the court’s injunctions. One senator argued the bill would dilute Black voting strength and was being driven by national Republican politics, while the sponsor and others insisted the legislature was acting only conditionally and that the court had not ordered the specific action being debated. The exchange became lengthy and contentious, but no final vote or other action on HB1 was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• take a case.
• > we<00:19:27.280> had<00:19:27.440> a um hearing, the public hearing, we had a
• um hearing, the public hearing, we had a number<00:19:27.760> of<00:19:27.919> public<00
• reasons take a case. reasons take a case.
• hear any others. Sorry. hear any others. Sorry.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm pleased to be chairing today's hearing.
• Can you hear me? We can.
• And more specifically, in this case, the cost of pollution in cases where the polluter had foreknowledge
• We can hear you.
• Which brings me to today's hearing.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee hearing focused on a broad set of climate, energy, and environmental justice proposals. Early testimony strongly supported the Climate Change Superfund or “Polluter Pays” bill (H.1014/S.58), which would assess the largest fossil fuel emitters for a one-time fee based on historic emissions to fund climate adaptation. Sponsors argued the bill is modeled on Superfund cleanup principles, would target only the largest multinational polluters, would not be passed on to consumers, and would direct a significant share of funds to environmental justice communities. Committee members asked about the number of companies covered, consumer impacts, and whether the bill would address other forms of environmental destruction; sponsors said it was limited to major fossil fuel companies with a Massachusetts footprint and did not cover other pollution sources. The committee also heard testimony on a fusion energy compact proposal (S.673) that would direct the administration to develop a framework for a New England regional compact to accelerate fusion research, workforce development, and supply-chain growth. Supporters from MIT and the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities said fusion could become a major clean-energy and economic opportunity, but acknowledged the technology is not yet commercially viable and still has unresolved technical, cost, and waste-management questions. Members pressed on environmental impacts, siting, waste, costs, and whether the bill would create a compact or only a framework; sponsors said it would only create the framework and that the administration would need to negotiate with other states. Another major topic was a pilot program for nature-based climate solutions (H.971/S.??), backed by legislators, Boston Harbor Now, and UMass Boston’s Stone Living Lab. Witnesses said the bill would help speed permits for research and demonstration projects such as living shorelines, marsh restoration, and hybrid “green-to-gray” flood protections, while maintaining safeguards and protecting Indigenous and historic resources. Committee members asked how the proposal would interact with other permitting reforms and whether it could conflict with housing or wetland-related streamlining; supporters said it was complementary and aimed at making projects faster, more affordable, and more data-driven. The hearing also covered climate-safe buildings and climate adaptation funding bills. Supporters of H.1004/S.583 said current building codes do not adequately account for future flooding, heat, and wind, and the bill would add climate expertise to the building board, allow stretch resilience codes, expand floodplain standards, and create a retrofit program. Related testimony backed H.938/S.572, which would create a dedicated climate and community resilience fund financed by a small fee on property insurance premiums; advocates said it would provide stable long-term revenue for adaptation, especially in environmental justice communities, and help replace unreliable federal funding. One witness from CLF supported the climate-safe buildings and funding bills but opposed S.560/H.939 as too broad. The committee also heard testimony on airport air-quality legislation (H.997) calling for more monitoring and mitigation of ultra-fine particulate pollution around Logan Airport and Massport communities. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Case, Chairman Case. >> Thank you, Mr.
• Senator Case, Chairman Case. >> Thank you, Mr.
• Thank you chairman case. case. case.
• A lot of those cases that extreme cases.
• Chairman, Senator Case, that's such a great question, and we've been hearing the same themes all day

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Jordan sat before this committee to hear Jordan sat before this committee to hear testimony<00:11
• No, that is not generators in this case. No, that is not the<01:14:30.400> case.
• cases, we don't have to allocate it all. cases, we don't have to allocate it all.
• Hearing none, this hearing is closed, and we’ll go into executive session.
• Do I hear a second?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on House Bill 302, which would allow the state treasurer to invest public funds in precious metals and digital assets. The sponsor was not present, so Representative Urs introduced the bill briefly and said he did not know much about it. No one from the Treasury Department testified, and members repeatedly noted the treasurer’s absence. Susan Elme testified against the bill, arguing that these investments are highly volatile and contrary to the treasury’s duty to remain stable and liquid. She said the bill should be killed. In questioning, she estimated the 5% cap in the bill would amount to roughly $10 million, depending on available funds, and said such investing would be more appropriate for an individual day trader than for the state treasury. Members also discussed prior legislative experience with Bitcoin-related proposals and raised concerns about whether the treasury had the staff expertise to manage commodity or digital asset investing. The committee did not take a final vote; instead, it agreed to hold a work session and seek additional information from the treasurer, with a plan to revisit the bill on April 1.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, the Supreme Court doesn't hear all cases. well. So we appreciate your consideration.
• Chairman, the Supreme Court doesn't hear all cases. Mr.
• Chairman, the Supreme Court doesn't hear all cases, which means that the appellate court is the final
• court that will hear it.
• So I guess my question is: Has the Supreme Court agreed to hear this case? Yes. Mr.

Bills: HB2120, HB2173, HB2261, HB2786, HB2792

Keywords: property tax exemption, disability, veterans, widows, income limits, Arizona Revised Statutes, property tax, electronic communication, tax assessment, tax correction, real estate, agriculture, tax classification, land use, nonprofit organizations, transaction privilege tax, tax exemption, textbook rental, education, business leasing

Transcript Highlights:

• In the case of Lower St.
• My question was how many of those 14 cases were of vaccinated kids or, in this case, vaccinated cases
• case vaccinated cases in general? case vaccinated cases in general? Um<01:04:34.720> Dr.
• case manager requirements. case manager requirements.
• to hear this.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 00:46.360> notice, content, including the hearing notice, content, including the hearing notice
• And so each workers' comp case is case-by-case.
• > a<00:32:40.560> case-by-case.
• um uh well, case is it's a case-by-case. um uh well, case is it's a case-by-case.
• Can you hear me? Yes. Please proceed. Can you hear me? Yes. Please proceed.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 2455, HD2, relating to employment practices. Testimony was limited, with support from the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women and UPW; the committee noted nine support, zero opposition, and zero comments. No vote was taken on this bill during the portion provided. The committee then took up House Bill 2165, HD2, relating to the Hawaii Employment Security Law. DLIR supported the measure but requested an amendment moving language in Section 2 from subsection A to subsection C to preserve the legal structure. Members questioned DLIR about a January 8 U.S. Department of Labor letter and whether the bill would keep Hawaii in conformity with federal unemployment insurance requirements. DLIR said the federal guidance requires the state to remove the carve-out for labor-dispute claimants, though unions with hiring halls and members in good standing could still be exempt from work-search requirements under an authorized list. UNITE HERE Local 5 opposed the bill and said the current law already gives the department discretion to exempt striking workers. The committee recessed the bill before any final action was taken in the portion shown. In the joint hearing with Commerce and Consumer Protection, the committees heard House Bill 1509, HD2, relating to workers’ compensation. DLIR supported the bill, DHER offered comments and requested an amendment, UPW supported it, and one Zoom testifier described personal experience with delayed care and urged faster decisions. After testimony, the committees voted to pass the bill with amendments. The adopted amendments restored the 7-day treatment-plan deadline from 10 days, changed the effective date to January 1, 2077, and struck the proposed $500 fine for employers who fail to respond within 10 days. Back in the Labor and Technology agenda, the committee heard House Bill 1515, HD2, also relating to workers’ compensation, with testimony noting seven in support, one in opposition, and one comment, but no action was taken in the excerpt. The committee also heard House Bill 1514, HD2, relating to workers’ compensation vocational rehabilitation plans. A Zoom testifier opposed the bill, arguing the 120-day timeline was unrealistic for complex cases. DLIR said the bill would give the director discretion to extend the vocational rehabilitation plan timeline beyond 120 days with no cap on extensions, and the committee noted five support, four opposition, and zero comments. Finally, the committee began House Bill 2458, HD3, relating to surveillance pricing. OCP said it stood on written testimony, while supporters argued the bill would prevent corporations from using personal data to set prices, especially for groceries. Retail and grocery interests opposed the measure, saying it was too broad and could restrict loyalty programs, promotions, and discounts; one witness asked that a loyalty-program exemption be restored.

Transcript Highlights:

• But unfortunately, that is not the case.
• As we often hear testimony in this committee, that's extremely painful.
• Because I remember hearing it before. Why, what’s been the deal?
• We hear a lot of bills, and so we get wrapped up in our own bills.
• Seeing none, that will conclude our public hearing on Senate Bill 1135.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Children and Families held a public hearing on Senate Bill 1135, known as Bentley and Mason’s Law, with nine members present. Senator Henderson presented the bill as a child-support-style restitution measure for children who lose a parent or parents because of a drunk or drug-impaired driver. He said the amount would be determined through the clerk and court process based on the offender’s finances and the children’s prior standard of living, and noted the bill includes a delay in payments if the offender is incarcerated. He also explained that if a family pursues a civil recovery from insurance, they would not also receive the maintenance order, to avoid double recovery. Committee members asked about how the payments would be calculated, whether health care or other needs could be included, whether the bill would affect FAFSA or survivor benefits, and whether there would be penalties for nonpayment. Several members praised the concept but raised concerns about enforceability, possible bankruptcy discharge, and the civil-suit limitation. Senator Henderson said he was open to further discussion on strengthening the bill, but noted some provisions were compromises made to keep the bill moving. Public testimony was strongly in favor. Brooke Stewart described how her husband was killed by a drunk driver in Tennessee and said a court award under Bentley’s Law would help support her daughters’ future needs, including college. Heather Elder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving supported the bill, said similar laws have passed in other states and territories, and urged the committee not to amend or delay it further. She also described the original Missouri family behind the bill and said the measure would provide accountability and relief for children left behind by impaired-driving deaths. No one testified in opposition, and the committee adjourned after closing the hearing on SB 1135.

Transcript Highlights:

• We hear from the public.
• <00:14:28.399> We<00:14:28.560> hear<00:14:28.720> from hear from the public
• We hear from hear from the public.
• state of Minnesota because as I hear state of Minnesota because as I hear them<00:46:10.560>
• We have not to present their case.

Transcript Highlights:

• >> Can you hear me? >> Can you hear me?
• >> Thank you for hearing this bill. >> Thank you for hearing this bill.
• And these rate cases are a rate case.
• or when not to hear cases. or when not to hear cases.
• But we can still have hearings. >> Yes. But we can still have hearings.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard SB 2694 SD2, which would authorize the Public Utilities Commission to create automatic adjustment mechanisms for water carriers, including a water carrier inflationary cost index, and to waive certain requirements under the Hawaii Water Carrier Act. Testimony was sharply divided. The Department of Transportation, Young Brothers, and several shipping, harbor, labor, and business-related supporters argued the bill would modernize regulation, reduce the need for large catch-up rate cases, and help keep rates aligned with rising costs. Young Brothers said its current rate-setting process is expensive and delayed, and that annual adjustments with guardrails such as a 5% cap and periodic full reviews would support sustainable operations and the state’s supply chain. Some supporters also said the company’s less-than-container-load service and required inter-island routes create costs that are not fully covered by current rates. Opponents, including the Consumer Advocate, the Maui Chamber of Commerce, Hawaii Food Industry Association, restaurant and chamber groups, and other businesses, argued the bill would lead to higher costs for consumers and businesses and should not move forward. Several testified that shipping costs already significantly affect pricing and that automatic increases would worsen the cost of living. The Consumer Advocate said Young Brothers should focus on cost control and implementing its business plan rather than automatic rate increases. The Maui Chamber and others pointed to a recent PUC decision that imposed a two-year stay on rate increases and said the bill would undermine that protection. Some opponents urged the committee to defer to the PUC’s regulatory authority. The PUC explained that it regulates water carriers as public utilities under existing statute and said it had recently approved a temporary rate increase while imposing a two-year stayout period on further increases, with emergency relief still possible. PUC members said they were still examining whether they have authority to adopt the proposed WICI mechanism by rule and wanted legislative clarity. In response to questions, the PUC said it prefers the current two-year stayout as reflected in its order. Young Brothers also clarified that it serves less-than-container-load cargo, that some routes and services are cross-subsidized because they are not profitable, and that an independent observer is being put in place to monitor implementation of its updated business plan. The transcript ended with the committee still taking questions; no final vote or disposition on the bill was shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• It happens in different types of cases. It happens in business cases.
• It happens in civil cases, civil liability cases.
• case law.
• the case.
• I think what we hear, though, is we hear that a different standard of care should be applied to the child

Summary: The Judiciary Committee took up two bills. SB 98, by Senator Harrell, would let self-storage facilities advertise lien sales either in a newspaper or on a qualifying website, while keeping other notice requirements in place and updating contact information provisions. Supporters, including the Florida Press Association and several newspaper/storage owners, argued print and digital newspaper notices already provide broad public notice and that the bill could reduce notice effectiveness; the sponsor said the bill is an optional modernization and does not affect government notices. After debate, the committee voted 8-1 to report SB 98 favorably. The committee then heard SB 164, by Senator Grall, which expands Florida’s Wrongful Death Act to allow parents to recover civil damages for the death of an unborn child at any stage of development, with carve-outs for the mother and lawful medical care. The sponsor said the bill aligns civil law with Florida’s criminal protections for unborn children and gives families a remedy where current law may not. Opponents, including the ACLU of Florida, health care workers, and others, warned it could invite lawsuits against doctors, hospitals, friends, family members, and people involved in abortion access, and could worsen OB-GYN shortages and deter care. Supporters said it recognizes unborn life and should be treated consistently with existing wrongful death law. The committee approved SB 164 on a 4-3 vote and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• uh so as we reach full complement cases uh so as we reach full complement cases will<00:07:57.039
• Katrina developed a scorecard for us to monitor our incoming cases, where the cases are in the process
• Katrina developed a scorecard for us to monitor our incoming cases, where the cases are in the process
• Katrina developed a scorecard for us to monitor our incoming cases, where the cases are in the process
• And that's not the case.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from the March 6, 2026 meeting and then received updates from the Legislative Budget Assistant audit staff on several ongoing audits. Christine Young reported that the special education audit was in report-writing stage with 39 of 80 observations completed and a draft expected in the second quarter, the education freedom accounts audit had 27 of 42 observations completed with a draft also expected in the second quarter, and the Doorway program audit had a draft report with 15 observations sent to DHHS on March 30, with responses due April 24 and presentation expected at the May fiscal committee meeting. Members asked about the size of the special education report, and staff estimated it would be over 800 pages and roughly three pounds. The committee then reviewed prior audit responsiveness from the Human Rights Commission. The commission reported that 22 observations had been completed, with remaining issues focused on timely case processing, a formal risk assessment, and a performance measurement system. Officials said staffing shortages were improving, a risk assessment manual had been drafted, a scorecard system was nearly complete, and the commission’s rules were moving through the public hearing process. Members asked about the timeline, and the commission said case processing was averaging 20 to 22 months and that the remaining items were expected to be resolved over time. Police Standards and Training also reported progress on prior audit items. The director corrected one status designation and said the job task analysis for curriculum development was substantially resolved, with findings and recommendations being prepared for the council. He said work on fitness testing was on hold pending legislative action, the performance measurement and strategic planning item remained a priority, and the council was focusing first on updating administrative rules. He also said the corrections advisory committee likely needed a statutory amendment to better reflect members with practical corrections experience. In response to questions, he said the council does not certify county correctional officers but reviews county curriculum annually, and he said the agency would be open to discussing consolidation or a pathway for county officers to become state-certified. The Department of Corrections then updated the committee on parole board-related audit items, saying 11 of 13 DOC-related findings were resolved. The remaining issues involved implementing a structured decision-making process for the parole board and improving data collection for recidivism tracking; the board had applied to the National Institute of Corrections for training, and manual data collection was underway. DOC also said it had created a HIPAA-compliant release form to share substance use disorder treatment information with the parole board. Finally, OPLC reported on the mental health workforce audit, saying six findings were fully resolved and six substantially resolved, with most remaining items tied to rulemaking and application processing. The office expects to complete its backend system migration and improve timeliness metrics by the end of the year, and it recently launched a jurisprudence exam for the mental health board. Under potential audit topics, staff said two items remained suspended because of litigation, and the committee discussed whether to keep DHHS contract management on the list. Representative [name unclear] proposed adding two new education freedom account audit topics: verification of residency and eligibility, and a record of educational attainment while preserving student privacy. Members supported adding them, but staff warned the expanded scope could delay the report and would require coordination with the Department of Education and approval by the Fiscal Committee. The chair said staff would work with the commissioner and LBA to draft the revised scope for further committee action.

Transcript Highlights:

• God is all hearing, all seeing.
• Advocates versus Minnesota in that case Advocates versus Minnesota in that case the<00:09:24.600>
• or individuals often times those cases or individuals often times those cases are<00:18:07.679><
• information and helping build the case information and helping build the case on<00:50:46.040>
• > wrong<00:57:32.200> way before the case was solved the wrong way before the case was

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• like capital cases.
• And those best practices, for instance, may speak to using stem those and only cases are capital cases
• death penalty case.
• serious cases, you get to know your victim should get to know your case.
• seen their cases.

Transcript Highlights:

• You should hear that uh buzzer go off. You should hear that uh buzzer go off.
• Hearing none. on there. Any opposition? Hearing none.
• They have too many cases.
• They have too many cases. And try them. They have too many cases.
• case different from the other. case different from the other.

Bills: SB255, SB199, SB47, HB605, HB216, HB621, HB148, HB389, HB509, HB248, SB255, SB199, SB47, HB605, HB216, HB621, HB148, HB389, HB509, HB248, SB336, SB293, SB43, HB420, HB60, HB188, HB106, HB105, HB11

Keywords: SB255, cannabinoid, hemp, hemp-derived THC, THCa, delta-8 THC, HHC, CBD, THC, novel cannabinoid products, hemp products, intoxicating hemp, delta-8, retail license, Department of Revenue, Department of Agriculture and Industries, testing and labeling, third-party laboratory, product safety, public health

Transcript Highlights:

• hearing posted shortly after the hearing wraps up.
• hearing posted shortly after the hearing wraps up.
• Now we're going to hear— Now we're going to hear from, first we're going to hear from Christian Selvin
• Can you hear me?
• I don't know if people can hear me. Yes, we can hear you. Okay, great.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee opened a public hearing on 41 bills related to school climate and safety, with chairs Jason Lewis and Ken Gordon outlining procedures and noting more than 125 witnesses. The first major topic was the “Study Act” on cell phones in schools and related social media restrictions (House 666/Senate 335). Secretary of Education Pat Tutwiler and Attorney General Andrea Campbell testified in strong support, arguing that bell-to-bell phone-free policies would improve student focus, reduce anxiety and distraction, and support mental health. Several legislators also supported the approach, though Representative Jeff Turco and Senator John Keenan emphasized narrower bills focused only on school-day phone restrictions rather than broader social media regulation. Senator John Velis likewise backed a comprehensive school-hours restriction, citing student distraction and mental health concerns. Representative Tarsky described successful implementation of a Yondr pouch system in a school where he served as principal, saying it improved engagement and reduced bullying and discipline issues. The committee then heard testimony on a bill to prohibit Native American mascots in public schools (Senate 312/House 575). Senator Joe Comerford, Brittany Wally, and Rhonda Anderson all urged passage, saying Native mascots are dehumanizing, harmful to Native youth, and inconsistent with civil rights and educational values. They described support from tribal nations and noted that many Massachusetts schools have already changed mascots, but some still resist. The hearing also included testimony on school start times (House 647/Senate 360), where middle school students Caroline Duffy and Emery Jarvis described exhaustion and survey data showing widespread sleep deprivation. Former educator Telia Jacobs, former principal Rep. Tarsky, and others argued that later start times would improve health, learning, and student well-being, while acknowledging transportation and scheduling challenges. Zoriana Petrosian, who helped write one of the bills as a student, said the state already has enough research to act now. Additional bills drew testimony on related school issues. Dr. Raul Fernandez supported a bill promoting racially integrated schools (Senate 324), citing a recent advisory council report showing large disparities in segregated schools and urging DESE to develop a statewide integration strategy. On safe firearm storage education (House 548/Senate 397), multiple witnesses from Grassroots for Gun Violence Prevention and school communities supported annual school-based education about secure storage, saying it would help prevent child access to unsecured firearms and build on local resolutions already adopted in some districts. The committee also heard testimony on bills to expand career and academic plans (House 533/Senate 438), with speakers saying more structured planning would help students make informed college and career choices. Later, testimony on child sexual abuse prevention and survivor support bills described the prevalence of abuse, the need for training in schools and youth-serving organizations, and the importance of extending compensation and prevention measures. Throughout the hearing, chairs repeatedly closed bills with no witnesses and moved the agenda forward, but no votes were taken in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• I forget the person's name that this is a case-by-case basis.
• I forget the person's name that this is a case-by-case basis.
• I forget the person's name that this is a case-by-case basis.
• So, I'm going to go it's a case-by-case basis.
• I forget the person's name that this is a case-by-case basis.

Keywords: 1183, house