Transcript Highlights:

• I caught Mister Speaker, I move to amend Senate Bill 1687 page one section 1 by deleting section one
• and by renumbering subsequent sections.
• This provision is in Title 8, Section 1621 of US code.
• Speaker, I move to amend Senate Bill 1242, page 16, section 1, lines 3.
• Speaker, I move to amend Senate Bill 259, page 6, section 3, lines 8.

Bills: SB1687, HB1687, HB4431, HB2894, HB2979, HB3262, HB3298, HB3369, HB3431, HB3462, SB1226, SB1876, SB1916, SB1920, HB3467, HB3498, HB3500, HB3521, HB3581, HB3650, HB3673, HB3764, HB3767, HB3781, HB3800, HB3831, HB3834, HB3941, HB2749, HB3970, HB3972, HB3979, HB3980, HB3981, HB3996, HB4095, HB4104, HB4191, HB4248, HB4298, HB4338, HB4427, HB4428, HJR1023, HB3660, HB3718, HB4326, HB3443, HB3880, HB3649, HB3000, SB1651, SB504, SB372, SB1326, SB1633, SB248, SB1242, SB1238, SB423, SB1989, SB1286, SB904, SB1213, SB1216, SB1827, SB65, SB1390, SB259, SB1944, SB540, SB2139, SB346, SB1595, SB1400, SB1555, SB1209, SB2110, SB1670, SB1061, SB2104, HR1057, SB1946, SB1734, SB1316, SB1360, SB1557, SB1684, SB2049, SB1410, SB2011, SB1437, SB1204, SB1732, SB1775, SB2084, SB1380, SB1572, SB1772, SB1224, SB710, SB1338, SB1266, SB1303, SB1307, SB1562, SB1794, SB1191, SB1983, SB1832, SB1448, SB1534, SB1593, SB1597, SB1630, SB1489, SB1726, SB1796, SB1806, SB1877, SB1451, SB1553, SB1632, SB1423, SB1425, SB1502, SB2180, SB1725, SB2182, HB3003, HB3004, HB4434, HB4324, HB4342, HB2137, HB4432, SJR50, SJR52, SJR53

Keywords: driver licenses, exam proctor, Service Oklahoma, commercial training, background checks, advance directive, advance health care directive, health care proxy, medical power of attorney, durable power of attorney for health care, living will, surrogate decision-maker, default surrogate, health care agent, capacity determination, supported decision making, mental health directive, psychiatric advance directive, end-of-life care, life-sustaining treatment

Transcript Highlights:

• The chamber supports HF 8, section 7, which creates an ombudsman for business permitting.
• The section includes, among other items, investigating the cause for permit applications being deemed
• We are also interested in the sections of the bill that establish a permitting ombudsman position.
• It's actually in the same section of law. Thank you, Mr.
• </c> that it's actually in the same section that it's actually in the same section of of of law<00:30

Bills: HF8, HF1416

Keywords: wetlands, environmental review, permitting efficiency, Pollution Control Agency, construction permits, environmental impact statements, local government, business regulation, environmental assessments, HF1416, relocation grants, economic development, business relocation, site selection, business incentives, grant extension, appropriation extension, DEED, Department of Employment and Economic Development, request for proposals

Transcript Highlights:

• It could be a two- to 300-section bill that OLS legislative service has to draft, so there's usually
• It could be a two- to 300-section bill that OLS legislative service has to draft, so there's usually
• It could be a two- to 300-section bill that OLS legislative service has to draft, so there's usually
• It could be a two- to 300-section bill that OLS legislative service has to draft, so there's usually
• It could be a two- to 300-section bill that OLS legislative service has to draft, so there's usually

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Section two is the heart of this bill.
• </c><01:03:18.319><c> two</c> will stand the test of time section two will stand the test of time section
• Representative Alexander: I have a question about section five.
• </c> question about section question about section five<01:07:02.160><c> uh</c><01:07:02.400><c> it</
• I don't see the purpose of that section if there's something I'm missing. Let me know.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Housing Committee heard testimony on HB 577, a bill to expand accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in New Hampshire. The sponsor and supporters described the state’s housing shortage and argued the bill would make it easier for property owners to build ADUs by right, up to 950 square feet, either attached or detached, while still requiring compliance with building codes, septic/water limits, and other local requirements. Supporters said the measure would help seniors age in place, provide housing for young adults, caregivers, and workers, and make better use of existing property such as garages and barns. Representative Reed raised concern that removing language related to short-term rentals could allow ADUs to be used for that purpose rather than long-term housing. The sponsor said he was open to clarifying language on short-term rentals, and another witness explained that current law already allows municipalities some choice on ingress/egress requirements, while the bill would standardize that and leave the design choice to the property owner. Several supportive witnesses followed, including the New Hampshire Home Builders Association, the New Hampshire Association of Realtors, the Business and Industry Association, AARP, Housing Action New Hampshire, 603 Forward, and New Hampshire Youth Movement. They emphasized affordability, property rights, workforce housing, intergenerational living, and the need for statewide consistency. A Derry resident testified that his existing garage space could be converted into an ADU under HB 577, but current local rules prevent that because it is detached; he said the bill would let him rent it affordably. Supporters also argued that ADUs can increase property values and help homeowners cover mortgages and taxes. In opposition, the New Hampshire Municipal Association said the bill would impose a local zoning mandate, could add density pressure on already stressed infrastructure, and did not guarantee that new units would be affordable or workforce housing. No vote or final committee action was taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, we would propose that it might be a better way to deal with this situation to perhaps amend sections
• Um, you know, the sections that's referenced in this bill were meant to protect kupunas.
• of 706, which to perhaps amend sections of 706, which deal<00:06:58.960><c> with</c><00:06:59.160><c
• Um, you know, the<00:09:20.640><c> sections</c><00:09:21.160><c> that's</c><00:09:21.440><c> referenced
• </c><00:09:22.000><c> in</c><00:09:22.080><c> this</c> the sections that's referenced in this the sections

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 963, which would make crimes against elders age 60 and over strict liability offenses by removing the requirement that the perpetrator knew or should have known the victim’s age. The Office of the Public Defender opposed the bill, arguing that removing the state-of-mind element would create unfair and subjective results and suggesting sentencing enhancements or broader vulnerability-based language instead. Supporters, including Sandy Wong and another testifier with elder-abuse experience, said the current knowledge requirement creates a loophole that lets offenders avoid the elder enhancement even when they target vulnerable older adults. No vote was taken on the measure in the portion provided. The committee also heard HB 384, which increases penalties for promoting minor-produced sexual images, extends probation terms for felony obscenity offenses, tolls the statute of limitations during a victim’s minority, and requires sex offender registration for certain felony obscenity offenses involving minors. The Public Defender opposed the bill as overly broad and warned of absurd results, while the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney supported it, saying the bill addresses sextortion and other exploitation cases where adults solicit images from minors and that the 3-year age-gap threshold preserves ordinary teen relationships. Committee members questioned whether the bill was aimed at adults only and whether the age-gap carveout was narrow enough; the prosecutor said it was intended to cover adult predators and not consensual peer conduct. No final action was reported. HB 1100, which renames the Neighbor Islands Blind and Visually Impaired Service Pilot Program to use “low vision” instead of “visually impaired,” was supported by the Department of Human Services and disability advocates, who said the current term is derogatory and that the change responds to the blind community. The department said it was beginning work on administrative rules and expected to seek an appropriation, with implementation hoped for in 2026. The committee then heard HB 1283, exempting paternity proceedings from mediation when domestic abuse is alleged; the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence and others supported it as consistent with divorce law and important for survivor safety. HB 689, creating safe harbor protections for survivors of sexual exploitation who seek medical or law enforcement help, drew support from HPD, Emua Alliance, the Judiciary, and others, who said it would prevent traffickers from using prostitution charges to silence victims. Finally, HB 383, reinstating mandatory minimum jail terms for successive violations of protective orders and removing the court’s ability to suspend those minimums, drew opposition from the Public Defender, who said some repeat violations stem from mental health or substance use issues, and support from the Prosecuting Attorney, who argued the bill treats protective orders like temporary restraining orders and preserves judicial discretion within a misdemeanor framework.

Transcript Highlights:

• by section.
• by section.
• section.
• section.
• is</c> through it um section by section this is through it um section by section this is coming<00:48

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> amendment to um say that this section amendment to um say that this section shall<02:00:06.639><
• </c> word legal from those two um sections. word legal from those two um sections.
• Um, I do deleted that whole section.
• D in section two and section<03:38:45.439><c> three</c><03:38:46.640><c> uh</c><03:38:46.720><c> and
• </c><03:38:46.960><c> clarify</c><03:38:47.439><c> its</c> section three uh and clarify its section three

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs heard testimony on HB 1875, which would expand Hawaii’s existing protections to include gender-affirming health care, clarify permitted disclosures of protected health information, and bar certain adverse actions by malpractice insurers and health carriers against providers of lawful reproductive or gender-affirming care. The Insurance Division of DCCA supported the bill with a technical amendment, suggesting language tied to actuarial analysis rather than the phrase “actuarially sound.” The Office of Information Practices also provided comments. Most testimony was strongly in support. State agencies and advocacy groups, including the Hawaii State Youth Commission, State Health Planning and Development Agency, Commission on the Status of Women, Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, Hawaii Public Health Institute, Stonewall Caucus, ACLU of Hawaii, PFLAG Oahu, Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, the Healthcare Association of Hawaii, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said the bill would protect patient privacy, reduce chilling effects from out-of-state litigation, and help retain providers in a state already facing shortages. Several testifiers said gender-affirming care is medically necessary, evidence-based, and life-saving, and emphasized that Hawaii should protect its own health care decisions from outside political pressure. A few individuals testified in opposition, arguing the bill was unnecessary or that it protected providers more than opponents of the bill, but these views were not echoed by most of the testimony. The chair repeatedly reminded testifiers to keep comments brief and maintain decorum. The transcript provided does not include a final committee vote or disposition on the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think the idea that we have come up with, which is to replace Section 2 of Senate Bill 538 with the
• language of Section 7 of House Bill 1738 as amended by the Senate, will be an acceptable solution and
• >> So, it's Section 2 that's being replaced by Section 7. >> Yes. >> All right, so all in favor say I

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Summary: The meeting briefly opened as a committee of conference on SB 538 FN. Representative Boles explained that the agreed compromise was to replace Section 2 of SB 538 with the language of Section 7 of House Bill 1738 as amended by the Senate, saying this would be an acceptable solution and likely satisfactory to the Governor’s office. Members present voiced concurrence, and the House members were polled on whether to place the bill on consent; they agreed. No opposition was raised, and the motion carried unanimously. The committee then thanked participants and closed the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• That provision in the Constitution is found in Article 4, Part 2, Section 20.
• The section also provides that all other appropriations have to be made by separate, single-subject bills
• just want to give a shout-out to the potential gift clause issue that that presents under Article 9, Section
• counties are exempted essentially from the expenditure limitation of the Constitution's Article 9, Section

Summary: The committee considered a motion declaring House Bills 4138, 4139, 4140, 4141, 4143, 4144, 4145, 4146, 4147, 4148, 4149, and Senate Bill 1798 constitutional and in proper form. Rules attorney Tim Fleming said SB 1798, though not part of the budget package, had been reviewed and was constitutional and in proper form. He then discussed the budget-related bills, saying they were substantially constitutional and in proper form but flagged recurring issues in the feed bill and related budget measures. Fleming noted potential constitutional concerns with policy language in the feed bill, including child safety training requirements in the Department of Child Safety appropriation and restrictions on out-of-state provisional beds in the Department of Corrections appropriation. He also cautioned about appropriations conditioned on legislative approval, possible separation-of-powers concerns, nonprofit and charity distributions that could implicate the gift clause, and a provision exempting counties from the constitutional expenditure limitation. After no questions or comments, the committee voted 8-0 to recommend the measures as constitutional and in proper form. The motion passed with eight ayes and zero nays.

Transcript Highlights:

• The section notes that a blue ribbon plan that meets the requirement of this section is presumed, subject
• The section notes that a blue ribbon plan that meets the requirement of this section is presumed, subject
• Later in that section it notes that The section notes that a blue ribbon plan that meets the requirement
• This is for Section 6 on page 10.
• This is for Section 6 on page 10.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and took up a long agenda of bills, many of them amended. Early action included PCS for CS for HB 639, which would expand an existing Fraternal Order of Police specialty license plate to all Floridians, tighten specialty plate rules for future applicants, require financial projections and reporting, and create several new specialty plates. After questions about Florida nexus requirements and a successful amendment adding a Florida Film Legacy plate, the bill was reported favorably 26-0. PCS for CS for HB 1169, limiting local governments’ use of excess building-code enforcement funds for construction of the code-enforcement building, also passed unanimously after testimony from the Florida Home Builders Association. The committee then approved HB 139, expanding whistleblower protections for state, local, and contract employees who file ethics complaints, with support from the Florida Commission on Ethics. PCS for HB 273, which would make special districts eligible for certain state and federal grants and direct pay options, passed 24-1 after testimony from both supporters and opponents. Members also approved CS for HB 1087, a public-records exemption for certain stablecoin issuer information, and CS for HB 1085, updating the local government cybersecurity grant program by moving it to Cyber Florida at USF, adding a sunset, and limiting consecutive awards. Several environmental and local-government transparency measures drew extended debate. CS for CS for HB 1417, a broad environmental bill, was amended to remove several provisions, retain others on the Environmental Regulation Commission, springs, solar facilities, Indian River Lagoon septic deadlines, and coastal resiliency partnerships, and then passed 24-0 amid mixed testimony from DEP, water management districts, and environmental advocates. CS for HB 1457, creating a framework for regional stormwater management systems and water quality enhancement areas, passed 24-0 after discussion of port impacts. CS for HB 1329, requiring local budgets to be posted earlier, retained longer, and made searchable, and adding a 10% budget-cutting exercise, passed 17-6 after strong opposition from local-government groups who argued it would be costly and duplicative. The committee also approved CS for HB 4091 creating a special district for stormwater and flood control in Sarasota and Manatee counties, and then took up CS for HB 995, a major overhaul of Public Employees Relations Commission and union-related procedures, including registration, dues disclosure, election rules, leave-time limits, and expedited bargaining over legislatively appropriated salary increases; that bill was still under questioning when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• The added language beginning October 1, 2026, no contract shall be executed pursuant to this section
• Provided, however, any contract executed pursuant to this section before October 1, 2026, shall not be
• </c><00:27:56.399><c> before</c><00:27:56.720><c> October</c> pursuant to this section before October
• pursuant to this section before October 1,<00:27:57.679><c> 2026</c><00:27:58.880><c> shall</c><00:27
• </c> whole section. whole section.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And what we see is opportunity to add elements to the bill, such as, in section 302, perhaps including
• We also felt like in section 302A-?
• We also felt like in section 302A-?
• In section 302A-B, we felt like if there was some aspect of a reporting mechanism mentioned in the bill
• um and he can answer the health section um and he can answer the health<00:38:16.319><c> questions</

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to strike out sections four and five of the proposed bill and section six.
• We're going to strike out sections four and five of the proposed bill and section six.
• I don't believe it, but they recommended striking, I think, section five and section six.
• We're going to strike out sections four and five of the proposed bill and section six.
• I think section five and section six but I think section five and section six but I'm<03:02:39.760><c

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Public Safety Committee held a hearing on House Bill 433, which would appropriate $4 million for Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation re-entry services to connect offenders with community-based services. Director Tommy Johnson said the department supports the bill’s intent but noted the governor’s executive budget already includes $4 million for the same purpose and asked that the measure defer to that budget. Supporters, including the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission, Community Alliance on Prisons, and the ACLU, backed the funding but urged that it be tied to a clear re-entry plan, performance measures, transparency, and regular reporting to the legislature. They emphasized that re-entry should begin at intake and involve community partnerships, housing, treatment, employment, and family reunification services. Committee members questioned the department about current re-entry services, pre-trial detainees, and how the new funds would be used. Johnson said the department’s current statewide re-entry budget is about $1.5 million to $1.7 million, separate from the larger Corrections Program Services Division budget for in-facility programs. He described the proposed $4 million as supporting a mix of services, including a pilot apprenticeship program, substance abuse treatment, navigator or warm-handoff services, and short-term transitional housing. He also said the department already tracks performance outcomes in its annual report and can provide a matrix showing the intake-to-discharge process, program contracts, and volunteer organizations. The discussion also covered pre-trial detainees, electronic monitoring, and mental health services. Johnson said the department has limited jurisdiction over pre-trial detainees but works with courts to seek supervised release when possible; he noted that many requests are denied, though electronic monitoring has improved release rates somewhat. On mental health, he said the jail is not an ideal therapeutic setting for people found unfit to proceed and suggested a secure community-based step-down facility run by the Department of Health for those needing care above what the jail can provide but below forensic-level treatment. No vote or final action on the bill was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• In Section 1, what it really is is S. 718. I mean, they're identical.
• We also adopted their provision in Section 2 regarding ejectment.
• Section 3 is the penalty section. We adopted the penalties that the Senate had decided on.
• And then Section 4 is the appellate procedure.
• The bill, Section 1, strike Section 9-850, subsection E, item 1, and insert...

Keywords: 977, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Committee Substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 2F: A joint resolution proposing amendments to Sections
• 4, 6, and 9 of Article VII and the creation of a new section in Article XII of the State Constitution
• Thank you for those answers on that section, Senator Avala.
• section of Article 12 of the state constitution.
• And the creation of a new section of Article 12 of the state constitution.

Summary: The Senate took up Committee Substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 2F, a proposed constitutional amendment on property tax reform. The measure would increase the homestead exemption in stages, lower the assessment cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, and limit county and municipal ad valorem tax revenues to specified uses such as public safety, education, infrastructure, natural resources, debt service, employee benefits, and certain administrative costs. Supporters, led by Senator Avila, argued the proposal would provide meaningful property tax relief and push local governments to rein in spending, while opponents warned it would shift costs to fees, reduce local flexibility, and threaten funding for core services. Several amendments were offered and rejected. Senator Sharief proposed an income-based circuit breaker for property tax relief; Senator Smith offered a sunset clause; and Senator Berman proposed revising the ballot statement to better match the amended proposal and remove outdated references. Each amendment failed on recorded votes. During questioning and debate, senators pressed Avila on the ballot language, the effect on local services, whether the legislature could later restrict local spending by statute, and whether renters would benefit. Avila said the ballot language was not his and repeatedly stated he was presenting the governor’s proposal, while also saying local governments would need to prioritize budgets and that future legislatures could address implementation details. After the amendment votes, the joint resolution was read a third time and moved into final debate. Supporters said the proposal would give homeowners relief and force fiscal discipline at the local level. Opponents, including Senators Nathan, Bracey Davis, Smith, Polsky, and Errington, argued the measure was rushed, lacked a completed fiscal analysis or replacement revenue, and could harm police, fire, libraries, parks, housing, and other local services. They also criticized the ballot summary as misleading, especially regarding the staged homestead exemption increase. The transcript ends during debate, before any final vote on the joint resolution itself.

Transcript Highlights:

• A joint resolution proposing amendments to Sections 4, 6, and 9 of Article VII and the creation of a
• Thank you for those answers on that section, Senator Avala.
• section in Article 12 of the state constitution.
• section of Article 12 of the state constitution.
• And the creation of a new section of Article 12 of the state constitution.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, lines 1.24 through 2.7 insert a section that conforms with Article 4, Section 2 of the delete
• And that concludes the A11 amendment. a section that conforms with um Article a section that conforms
• </c> 4, Section 2 of the delete everything. 4, Section 2 of the delete everything.
• Um<00:04:47.760><c> that</c><00:04:48.400><c> section</c><00:04:49.520><c> uh</c> Um that section uh
• Um so, this just inserts that section.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In 2025, Section D of criminal court tried 31 jury trials.
• I thought I said Section D.” “No. No, I apologize. Yes, yes. Just Section D. Yes.”
• the bill to a different section of the bill.
• Do you know how the author at all determined which sections to eliminate?
• I preside over Section D.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and took up House Bill 911 by Rep. McMakin, which proposes a major restructuring of Orleans Parish courts into a single judicial district with one clerk of court and a consolidated system, while keeping current judges in place through the end of the year and allowing them to run in scheduled elections. The committee first adopted a three-minute debate rule, then later rejected a motion to suspend it. The bill was then amended with a large set of mostly technical changes, and the amendments were adopted without objection. Supporters argued the bill would modernize Orleans’ court structure, reduce duplication, and align Orleans with other judicial districts. They cited Supreme Court data, prior studies, declining population and caseloads, and the state’s direct funding of Orleans criminal court as reasons to consolidate and reduce judgeships. Opponents, including local legislators and attorneys, said Orleans is not comparable to other parishes because of complex litigation, multiple-defendant criminal cases, jury-trial volume, tourism-related cases, and the need for specialized dockets. They also criticized the process as rushed and said local judges, legislators, and practitioners were not adequately involved. Testimony from ACLU and defense-side witnesses emphasized that case counts are not uniform across parishes and that Orleans has a high number of jury trials and a large workload per judge. They warned that eliminating judgeships could increase delays and create transition costs, while supporters countered that other districts manage similar or heavier work with fewer judges. White-card witnesses from Orleans Civil District Court, including Judge Kernan Reese, Judge Sidney Cates, and Clerk Chelsea Richard Napoleon, testified that Orleans handles complex and time-sensitive matters, that the clerk’s office relies on self-generated funds, and that the bill’s funding and office references contain inaccuracies. No final vote on the bill was taken in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, so this section of the code addresses 61014A which is specifically about a voting station.
• And even though Section B of 61.014 deals with that.
• Section 61.014 deals with the use of wireless devices within 100 ft of the voting station.
• Uh, section 40, um, 41.00D, the, uh.
• And so this bill basically has a, as you can see, it, it repeals section 41.00D, um, that's.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:37.760><c> rates</c><00:03:38.000><c> under</c><00:03:38.239><c> this</c><00:03:38.400><c> section
• </c><00:03:38.720><c> became</c> interest rates under this section became interest rates under this section
• Are you talking about the change in section one? Correct. This is based on a scale.
• It’s line 3.24 in the food truck section. When could you cite that for me again, please?
• um when could you cite that for section um when could you cite that for me<00:35:21.800><c> again</c

Bills: HF2601, HF2607, HF2027, HF2608

Keywords: financial institutions, insurance regulation, insurance holding company, group capital calculation, liquidity stress test, NAIC, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, insurer solvency, affiliate transactions, groupwide supervision, internationally active insurance group, lead state commissioner, policyholder protection, hazardous financial condition, deposit or bond, contract for deed, conventional loan, cooperative apartment loan, mortgage interest rate cap, average prime offer rate