Transcript Highlights:

• a written piece of testimony for you saying that they are in favor of the bill.
• a written piece of testimony for you saying that they are in favor of the bill.
• a written piece of testimony for you saying that they are in favor of the bill.
• a written piece of testimony for you saying that they are in favor of the bill.
• a written piece of testimony for you saying that they are in favor of the bill.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• That's my testimony. Now I have two things that we need to do a little house cleaning on.
• now I have two that's my testimony now I have two things<00:12:25.800> that<00:12:25.920>
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Keywords: 928, house, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Please introduce yourself to the committee and proceed with your testimony. Mr.
• Please introduce yourself and proceed with your testimony. Good afternoon, Mr.
• Would you please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony?
• sign thank you Miss Lynch your testimony sign thank you Miss Lynch your testimony up<01:03:00.559
• earlier that I appreciate the testimony earlier that I appreciate the testimony from<01:19:39.840

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard a reinsurance overview from Deputy Commissioner Julia Dryer of the Minnesota Department of Commerce on the Minnesota Premium Security Plan. She explained that reinsurance helps stabilize premiums in the individual market by reimbursing insurers for high-cost claims, and said Minnesota’s program has lowered premiums, preserved carrier participation, and helped maintain consumer choice. She warned that without continued funding, the program would be depleted and individual-market premiums could rise by about 25%, with potential losses in coverage and access to care. She also described the program’s structure under a federal 1332 waiver, the role of MCHA in administering the program, and the state’s receipt of more than $650 million in federal pass-through funds to date. Dryer said the current program is funded through the end of 2025, though the federal waiver authority runs through 2027. The governor’s proposal would create a new assessment on insurers, estimated at roughly 2% to 3%, to fund the state share of the program and avoid another full waiver submission. She noted that the proposal assumes MinnesotaCare funding would be held harmless and that the program would be reduced if federal basic health plan funding were negatively affected. She also said projected costs changed because individual-market enrollment has grown and enhanced federal subsidies were removed from the estimate. Members raised concerns about the proposal’s impact on premiums and the history of the fund. Senator Rasmusson argued the new assessment amounts to a large tax increase on health insurance and questioned who would be assessed and whether the surcharge would be capped. Dryer responded that the assessment would be based on annual claims experience and market conditions, with final amounts determined at the end of each year, not monthly. Senator Duckworth and Senator Frentz supported reinsurance as a way to keep premiums lower, while also questioning how the program should be financed. Senator Green asked about the mechanics of the assessment and the role of the department in setting it, and Senator H questioned why the fiscal note assumed 12% annual growth for program costs when general premium growth was lower. No vote or formal action was taken in the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a, uh, testimony from answers.
• to the committee for taking my testimony to the committee for taking my testimony this<00:22:10.320
• :31:52.479> their<03:31:52.880> air testimony of years past their air testimony of years
• became an exhibit in my testimony became an exhibit in my testimony um<05:21:37.760> last
• <05:24:55.120> in that we filed as testimony in that we filed as testimony in Eversource's

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:16:16.759> um from um their uh frequent testimony um from um their uh frequent testimony
• your testimony your testimony my<00:49:57.079> initial<00:49:57.520> question<00:49
• <01:27:49.199> on you've heard in other uh testimony on you've heard in other uh testimony
• card that's the only other uh testimony card that's the only other uh testimony that<01:41:08.280
• thank you so much for your testimony thank you so much for your testimony thank<04:15:16.040>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and noted weather-related absences and a large number of new bills. The chair said a subcommittee would be formed to review three cell phone bills, and a full committee work session on bullying would be scheduled for the week after next. The committee then began a hearing on House Bill 121, which would create local special education advisory councils in school districts. Representative Glenn Cordelli, the sponsor, said the councils would be parent-driven, with parents of children with disabilities advising districts on education, safety, program development, evaluation, planning, policies, and communication with administrators. He said the bill would require at least quarterly meetings with district administration, an annual parent workshop, and a year-end report to the school board. He also cited federal guidance from the U.S. Department of Education on parent advisory councils and said the goal was to improve collaboration between parents and schools. Members raised questions about the use of “shall,” how councils would be formed in districts without PTAs/PTOs, whether the councils could function in very small districts, privacy concerns about parents disclosing their children’s disabilities, whether the councils should include guardians or educational professionals, and whether the councils would have any direct tie to the state advisory council. The sponsor said the requirement was intended to make the councils mandatory, that local districts could organize them organically if needed, that participation would be voluntary, that parents would not be required to disclose private information, and that the councils would remain advisory rather than determinative. He also said costs should be minimal. Testimony then began from Nicole Sheath, a pediatric occupational therapist and parent of four children with disabilities, who described her experience balancing advocacy, school collaboration, and the demands of her children’s therapies and education.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, we, as you mentioned, we did take testimony on February 25th, and any additional audience testimony
• their thoughts on House File 3773, otherwise we'll move on to member discussion and questions. take testimony
• on February 25th and take testimony on February 25th and any<00:01:55.760> additional<00:01:56.360
• > audience<00:01:56.760> testimony<00:01:57.280> today any additional audience testimony
• today any additional audience testimony today would<00:01:57.720> be<00:01:57.920> limited

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Members of the public testimony to the debate on this fine bill.
• I don't see any amendments, no public testimony. Members, do we have any debate on the bill?
• Seeing none, no public testimony. I understand you have an amendment on the bill.
• There is no public testimony on the bill as amended.
• The is no public testimony on the bill 716 as amended really debate.

Summary: The Economic Infrastructure Subcommittee met to consider several bills, beginning with HB 335 by Representative Kendall, which sought to recognize space as a fifth mode of transportation, give voting rights to ex officio Space Florida board members, and reduce what the sponsor described as unnecessary state oversight of spaceport operations. The bill was presented as a response to feedback from NASA, Space Force, and other federal partners about clarifying the state’s role at federally owned facilities like Kennedy Space Center. Members raised questions about terminology, authority over federal property, and the role of Space Florida; the sponsor said an amendment would remove the voting-rights provision and instead require spaceports to provide an annual list of shovel-ready projects. The amendment was adopted, and HB 335 passed favorably. The committee then unanimously passed HB 885, which designates a road in Baker County near the courthouse in honor of former Representative and Judge John Cruz, and HB 403, which names a portion of the road leading into NAS Pensacola as Warriors Way to honor the sailors killed in the 2019 Pensacola attack and the broader naval community there. Both bills drew brief supportive remarks and no opposition. The committee also considered HB 25, a bridge designation for Coach Wilks, a longtime local basketball coach, and adopted a Senate amendment adding the Dickey Betts Memorial Highway designation on U.S. 41 in Sarasota County. HB 25, as amended, passed unanimously. The meeting concluded with adjournment after all measures on the agenda were reported favorably.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, why are we limiting testimony to only three minutes?
• Looking forward to hearing your testimony. We will— is there anybody here to testify against?
• Thank you for your testimony. Representative Schulte and Representative Jones, thank you.
• Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony, ma'am.
• Seeing none, thank you for your testimony, sir.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , this hearing will be streamed on the Assembly's website, and members of the public can provide testimony
• The hearing will be streamed on the Assembly's website, and members of the public can provide testimony
• Our witness testimony will be in person. There will be no phone testimony option for this hearing.
• All other support and opposition testimony will be stated at the standing mic when called upon, simply
• Here with me to provide supporting testimony are representatives who will self-introduce: representatives

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Economic Development, Growth, and Household Impact met on July 11, 2025, and heard six measures focused on small business contracting, ports and trade, local economic development, clean energy transition, tariff impacts, and infrastructure finance. SB 70 would raise the Small Business Procurement and Contract Act contract cap from $250,000 to $350,000 and index it to inflation; supporters said it would reflect current economic conditions, while opponents argued it could reduce transparency, favor larger firms, and strain small businesses’ ability to carry inventory and wait for payment. The bill was approved 7-0 to Appropriations. AJR 14 urged federal agencies to consider the effects of tariff policy on California ports, with testimony emphasizing impacts on cargo volumes, jobs, supply chains, and infrastructure needs; it passed 7-0. SB 781 would require cities and counties to adopt small business utilization plans and strengthen the California Small Business Technical Assistance Program; chambers of commerce and committee members supported it as a way to expand procurement opportunities and technical assistance, and it passed 7-0 to Local Government. SB 227 would extend and expand the Green Empowerment Zone in Contra Costa County, add environmental justice representatives, and extend authorization to 2040; it passed 7-0 to the floor. SB 263 would direct the California Transportation Agency to study the statewide impacts of tariffs, with supporters from the ports, retail, and trucking sectors arguing that better data is needed to guide budgeting and policy responses; it passed 7-0 to Appropriations. SB 769 would create the Golden State Infrastructure Fund to finance major infrastructure projects through a revolving public-private investment model; supporters said it would help address long-term infrastructure needs and prepare for major events, and the bill passed 6-0 to Appropriations after opposition was withdrawn. All measures were reported out of committee, and the meeting adjourned at 10:39 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• If there are no further questions, we will proceed to testimony. The Chair calls up Annette Donker.
• Thank you for your testimony. Members, are there questions for this witness?
• If not, we will proceed to testimony and reserve your right to close. Mr.
• No, we'll proceed to witness testimony. Thank you. Thank you so much. The Chair calls Paul Nagy.
• Thank you for your testimony. Okay. Members, questions? Rep. Bastier, please.

Bills: HB1342, HB2889, HB3002, HB3254, HB4820, HJR40, HJR40

Keywords: private activity bonds, housing, residential rental projects, low-income, affordable housing, bond measures, funding equality, political subdivisions, public communications, election fairness, debt collection, consumer rights, disclosures, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, settlement agreements, State Board of Education, group benefits program, health insurance, state employees, dependents eligibility

Transcript Highlights:

• Passidomo: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. ALEXIS WEINBERG.
• Passidomo: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.
• Passidomo: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.
• Passidomo: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. JAMES? YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.
• Passidomo: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. TYLER?

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If you wish to give testimony, please fill out a card.
• Thank you so much for your testimony for being here today.
• But thank you for your testimony. Thank you. The board is clear.
• And honestly, I found your testimony very clear.
• Thank you so much for your testimony.

Bills: HB91, HB123, HB167, HB255, HB264, HB321, HB884, HB955, HB967, HB968, HB969, HB978, HB985, HB994, HB1005, HB1104, HB1107, HB1109, SCR3

Keywords: criminal procedure, disclosure, criminal records, witness protection, trial rights, electronic monitoring, GPS ankle monitor, ankle bracelet, pretrial release, post-conviction supervision, bail monitoring, house arrest, corrections, criminal justice, law enforcement, prosecuting authority, court reporting, provider registration, LCLE, Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Criminal Justice

Summary: The committee first handled housekeeping by voluntarily deferring HB 123, HB 255, and HB 994 without objection. It then took up SCR 3 by Sen. Myers, which sought to delay implementation of a State Police rule change affecting criminal history background checks for certain health care workers and authorized agents until October 1, 2026, to avoid hiring delays. An amendment was adopted to remove language authorizing parish and local law enforcement to perform checks during the interim. After testimony from health care stakeholders who supported the delay, SCR 3 as amended was reported favorably. The committee next considered HB 978 by Rep. Lecombe, which as amended changed the bill from a town-of-Addis-specific exception to a broader adjustment in the population threshold for municipalities required to remit special costs to the district indigent defender fund, raising the threshold from under 5,000 to under 9,000 population. Supporters said the change would relieve small mayor’s courts and similar local courts of a $45-per-violation burden that was not well suited to those systems. The bill drew support from local officials and was reported favorably as amended. HB 967 by Rep. Moore, which would have expanded parole eligibility for certain long-serving offenders convicted before July 2, 1973 by removing language limiting eligibility to those who had pleaded guilty, generated extensive debate. Supporters argued the bill would only allow elderly prisoners to be considered by the parole board and would not guarantee release, while opponents, including district attorneys and the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, argued the 2022 law already covered those who pled guilty and that the bill would extend relief to people convicted at trial of serious violent crimes. After discussion, the motion to report HB 967 favorably failed on an 8-3 vote. The committee then heard HB 1107 by Rep. Melancon, a post-conviction procedure bill for capital cases involving claims of intellectual disability. The bill, as amended, raised the burden of proof to clear and convincing evidence, required expert reports and IQ information, applied Daubert-style reliability screening, and clarified that it only applies in death penalty cases. Supporters from the Attorney General’s office and district attorneys said the bill would create a clearer procedure and speed resolution of Atkins claims; opponents from disability-rights, criminal defense, and medical groups argued it would replace clinical standards with a rigid statutory definition, rely too heavily on a 75 IQ cutoff, and risk excluding people with genuine intellectual disabilities. Testimony continued through the end of the transcript, with no final committee vote shown on HB 1107.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you both for your testimony. Members, any questions?
• Thank you both for your testimony. Members, any questions?
• <00:12:26.320> Thank name and and begin your testimony.
• Thank name and and begin your testimony. Thank you. you. you.
• ,<00:29:29.760> and name when you begin your testimony, and name when you begin your testimony

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But we will not be taking testimony. For those of you that sent in emails, we've received them.
• For those of not be taking testimony.
• So after we discuss in work testimony.
• I'm especially concerned about the testimony we heard from dees.
• <01:39:54.639> that um we heard plenty of testimony that um we heard plenty of testimony that

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee began with introductions and a description of the day’s process: a full committee work session on four bills, with no public testimony, followed by caucus and then executive action. The first bill discussed was HB 113, concerning OHRV operation on certain highways in Windsor. Representative Nab presented an amendment that would require a public hearing and Department of Transportation approval, modeled on procedures used in Coös and Grafton counties. Members discussed whether Windsor had already held a local vote or hearing, whether minutes from a town meeting existed, and whether the amendment truly preserved local control. A Windsor resident testified informally that the town had not taken a final vote and that the matter had been left to the state. Committee members also raised concerns about noise, dust, public safety, and the fact that the road in question would connect OHRVs on a state road rather than a trail system. The chair closed the work session on HB 113 and said the committee would return after caucus to vote on the bill and amendment. The committee then took up HB 595FN, relative to coastal resilience zones. Representative Nat said the bill addressed flooding concerns in both coastal and inland New Hampshire, but that the sponsor viewed it as too complex and had recommended breaking the issue into separate parts in future legislation. On that basis, Nat said it was appropriate to ITL the bill, and noted that the sponsor supported that course. No further discussion followed, and the work session was closed. Next was HB 629FN, funding the operation, maintenance, and repair of state dams. Representative Darby explained that the original bill had proposed both a waterfront frontage tax and a $5 charge tied to boat registration, but that the amendment would replace the bill by removing the frontage tax, moving the $5 dam-maintenance fee to the boat decal section of statute, and changing the effective date to January 1, 2027. Darby said the larger fee had raised concerns about impacts on current-use property and enforcement, while the revised $5 fee would raise roughly $500,000 to $600,000 annually. Representative Dunn thanked Darby and said the Marine Trades Association supported the revised approach. A question was raised about whether the original prime sponsors supported the amendment; the chair said they were on board, and Darby added that the proposal reflected recommendations from a prior study committee. The committee then closed HB 629FN and opened SB 27FN, relative to dwellings over water. On SB 27FN, Representative Derby said he opposed the bill because it would take away public access rights and amounted to a one-off legislative solution for a private concern. Representative Donnelly asked how many similar structures might be affected and whether the Department of Environmental Services knew of other cases; DES responded that there was one other related case under settlement compliance and no other active cases with the same issue. In follow-up discussion, DES clarified that the proposal was not a shoreland 50-foot setback issue, but rather involved structures extending over public water. The discussion remained focused on the scope of the bill and its potential precedent-setting effect, with no vote taken in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair and members, we will move to testimony.
• Chair and members, we will move<00:16:31.680> to<00:16:32.000> testimony.
• And I believe the move to testimony.
• Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
• And then come up and state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• As you all heard earlier on my testimony of the flood that I went through, I am living testimony that
• I'm interested to hear the testimony, but, um, oh, absolutely.
• All right, thank you very much for your testimony. I'm sorry. Representative Berry.
• We appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Chair calls Marvin Jones.
• Good afternoon and thank you for hearing my testimony in favor of House Bill 3154.

Bills: HB1520, HB1525, HB1530, HB1535, HB2068, HB2091, HB2347, HB2372, HB2805, HB2815, HB2867, HB3154, HB3482, HB3483, HB3663, HB3781, HB3901, HB3915, HB4135, HB4153, HB4158, HB4329, HB4331

Keywords: Angelina and Neches River Authority, river authority, Sunset Advisory Commission, Texas Sunset Act, Special District Local Laws Code, local government, natural resources, board of directors, director training, board governance, public testimony, open meetings, public information, conflict of interest, ethics, complaint system, general manager, board president, staggered terms, removal of director

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:48:49.400> from the working group invited testimony from the working group invited testimony
• <01:43:08.520> opposing I'm going to read a testimony opposing I'm going to read a testimony
• That concludes our testimony, members.
• <02:09:02.200> We concludes our testimony, members. We concludes our testimony, members.
• <02:09:37.280> Thursday, and hear public testimony. Thursday, and hear public testimony.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We did not specifically take testimony We did not specifically take testimony on<00:40:32.920>
• Earlier this session, our committee heard testimony from a formally incarcerated Vermonter.
• > sincere, Her testimony was thoughtful, sincere, Her testimony was thoughtful, sincere, and<01
• > continued Following that testimony, I continued Following that testimony, I continued conversations
• > multiple We took testimony from multiple We took testimony from multiple department<01:13:55.000

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House resumed consideration of H.606 on firearm procedures and first took up Section 3 and its effective dates. A member from Northfield spoke at length in support, arguing the provision is narrowly tailored, based on actual dangerousness rather than mental illness alone, and is more limited than federal law because it applies only to specific court findings and is temporary, with rights restorable upon recovery. The House then approved Section 3 and its effective dates, approved the remainder of the Judiciary Committee report, and ordered third reading. The chamber then moved through third readings and passed H.385 on remedies and protections for victims of coerced debt, H.556 on exceptions to the state minimum wage, H.559 on the parole board, H.723 on posting of land, and H.757 on manufactured homes and limited equity cooperatives. On H.814, relating to neurological rights and AI in health and human services, the House adopted an amendment offered by the member from Burlington that required the advisory council to include proposed definitions for neurotechnology, artificial intelligence, and related terms in its report; the House Health Care Committee reported the amendment favorable 11-0-0, and the bill then passed. H.816, regulating the use of artificial intelligence in the provision of mental health services, also passed, as did H.927, technical corrections for the 2026 session. The House then took up H.930 on chronic absenteeism. The committee member from Manchester described the bill as an AOE proposal responding to high post-pandemic absenteeism rates and their impact on learning, and outlined provisions adding definitions, updating compulsory attendance language, requiring a state model policy, strengthening notification and truancy procedures, and preserving existing penalties. The member said the Education Committee heard from a wide range of education and child welfare witnesses and passed the bill 11-0. After a brief clarification on the absences section, the House proceeded toward third reading of H.930.

Transcript Highlights:

• Appreciate your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• What's your pleasure public testimony.
• They've been provide some testimony.

Bills: HB0076, HB0102, HB0115

Keywords: annexation, landowner rights, municipal law, city planning, property, local government, artificial intelligence, synthetic sexual material, child protection, self-harm, criminal liability, cardiac emergency, defibrillator, school safety, training, public health, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you very much for your testimony.
• Thank you very much for your testimony.
• Thank you very much for your testimony.
• Thank you very much for your testimony.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Education Finance Committee met on February 5, 2025, to hear testimony from representatives of Minnesota’s Catholic and other nonpublic schools, focused on state nonpublic pupil aid, transportation, counseling, nursing, and related support programs. Meg Forette of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis argued that Catholic schools serve more than 30,000 students across many districts, educate a diverse population, and achieve strong academic results while operating at far lower per-student costs than public schools. She urged lawmakers to reject proposed cuts to nonpublic funding, saying they would be inequitable and harmful to lower-income families, and also raised concerns about state teacher-licensing requirements conflicting with Catholic values. Trisha Menshu, principal of St. John Paul II Catholic School in Northeast Minneapolis, described a student body with high levels of poverty, learning needs, and academic gaps, and said state-funded nurse and guidance-counseling services are essential to keeping students safe, healthy, and on track for high school. She said the school absorbs many costs itself, including medical supplies and significant staff time, and credited the support programs with helping students make strong academic growth and graduate on time. In response to a senator’s question, she clarified that the school uses the nursing aid for limited nurse time and pays other medical-related costs from operating funds, with no billing back to public school districts. Committee members asked follow-up questions about the relationship between teacher licensing and Catholic values, and about how medical needs for nonpublic students are funded. Forette said the concern was not with welcoming all students but with how DEI-related trainings and language are presented in ways that conflict with Catholic teaching. The committee then moved on to the next testifier, Andrew Hiliker of Stella Maris Academy in Duluth, who began by describing his school’s growth and the state’s role in supporting all students, regardless of school choice.