Transcript Highlights:

• Can you hear me okay? We can. Aloha. Can you hear me okay? We can.
• for a traditional rate case for a traditional rate case instead?
• <01:21:02.880> And cases. They're just many years old. And cases.
• going back to the 2016 rate case. going back to the 2016 rate case.
• hearing hearing or<01:50:11.960> testify.

Bills: SB2960, SB2347, SB2272, SB3137, SB3132, SB2271, SB2804, SB2175, SB2487

Keywords: homeowners insurance, disaster recovery, replacement cost value, state of emergency, policyholder rights, insurance extensions, tenant rights, landlord obligations, housing crisis, eviction prevention, multilingual access, SB2272, Act 105, home health licensing, home health agency, home health services, Department of Health, DOH, CMS, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

Summary: The committee heard several resolutions and one bill focused on energy reliability, utility infrastructure, insurance, tenant rights, and home health licensing. On the energy side, members heard HCR 203/HR 193 on a status update for the Hawaii Electric Reliability Administrator, HCR 204/HR 194 on a comprehensive PUC analysis of cost reduction and risk, and HCR 202/HR 192 creating a legislative task force on future energy pathways. Testimony on the energy measures was generally supportive from the PUC, DCCA’s Division of Consumer Advocacy, the Hawaii State Energy Office, and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, with OHA urging that equity, native Hawaiian impacts, and public trust resources be considered alongside cost savings. The committee also heard HCR 125/HR 117 on coordinating with utilities to address aging utility poles and lines along Farrington Highway and other high-risk corridors; Hawaiian Electric supported the measure, Hawaiian Telcom and Charter Spectrum said much of the work is already underway and questioned whether the resolution was necessary, and committee questioning focused on existing double-pole tracking and the role of DOT and the PUC. The committee then took up HCR 137/HR 129 on timely reimbursement of health care claims under the clean claims statute. The DCCA Insurance Division and the Hawaii Insurers Council opposed the measure as drafted, saying it could be read to require payment beyond policy limits and could raise premiums or reduce market participation. United Policyholders supported the measure, arguing it would simply give policyholders more time to collect benefits they already purchased, and clarified that it was not intended to increase coverage beyond policy limits. The committee later amended the resolution to direct the DCCA Insurance Division to prioritize investigation and enforcement of clean claims complaints. In the decision meeting, the committee recommended and adopted passage of HCR 203/HR 193 as is, HCR 204/HR 194 with an amendment removing the eighth whereas clause, HCR 202/HR 192 with an amendment adding a committee representative to the task force, HCR 125/HR 117 as is, and HCR 137/HR 129 with amendments. The committee also heard SB 2960 SC1 on property insurance, which would extend the time policyholders have after a declared disaster to document replacement-cost claims. The Insurance Division and Hawaii Insurers Council opposed it, warning it could force coverage beyond policy limits and increase premiums, while United Policyholders supported it and said it would help disaster survivors recover benefits they already paid for; members questioned whether similar laws in other states had caused premium spikes and clarified that the bill was not intended to exceed policy limits. The committee also heard SB 2347 SD1 on multilingual tenant-rights notices, with OHA, Hawaii Appleseed, and others supporting the bill but urging restoration of language requiring landlords to directly provide the notice at lease signing. Finally, SB 2272 SD1 HD1 on home health licensing drew support from the Department of Health, SHPDA, and the Health Care Association of Hawaii, with the association requesting an effective date amendment; testimony explained that the bill would allow state licensing compliance to be demonstrated through CMS-approved accreditation or certification surveys, potentially reducing duplication and freeing state resources.

Transcript Highlights:

• And when we selected these cases, In eight case study jurisdictions, and those are shown there on the
• We hear the recommendation a lot to streamline the process.
• In this case, programs are just continuing business as usual.
• We look forward to hearing. Our Spokane panel, you have a few extra minutes.
• We look forward to hearing about traffic safety and technological innovation.

Summary: The committee began with member introductions, then heard a presentation on a draft final report studying alternative funding mechanisms for sidewalks and related pedestrian infrastructure. Consultants said current local funding sources are insufficient, with most jurisdictions unable to complete planned sidewalk networks within 50 years. They evaluated four options: a sidewalk utility fee, a modified transportation benefit district sales tax, a new real estate excise tax option, and expanded stormwater fee use for ADA sidewalk ramps. The consultants recommended authorizing the modified TBD sales tax and new REET option, considering a sidewalk utility despite legal uncertainty, broadening any authorization to all pedestrian improvements, and not pursuing the stormwater fee option. Members asked about legal authority, fairness, revenue adequacy, and whether jurisdictions had been consulted; the presenters said state enabling legislation would likely be needed for a sidewalk utility and that fairness could be defined either by direct benefit or by need. The committee then received an update on the 2025 assessment of city transportation funding needs. The consultants reported that city transportation revenues have grown in some local and federal categories since 2019, but state revenues have remained relatively flat and smaller cities are especially affected by declining fuel tax revenues and limited tax bases. They estimated annual city transportation needs at $4.25 billion, average annual spending at $1.89 billion, and a funding gap of $2.37 billion, larger than in the prior study because of updated data, inclusion of system improvements, and higher preservation costs. Draft recommendations focused on reducing costs and improving efficiency, preserving and increasing state support, and expanding local funding options, including preservation-first spending, a permanent federal fund exchange program, streamlined review processes, better coordination with WSDOT, possible property tax flexibility, and exploration of new local tools. Members raised questions about design standards, the role of density and transit, federal compliance, and whether the report would identify specific consolidation or process changes. The committee also heard a project update on evaluating zero-emission vehicle and electrification programs funded by the Climate Commitment Act. Consultants said they had reviewed roughly 23 programs and projects across seven agencies and were now evaluating options to improve delivery, including process improvements, reorganizing programs, or consolidating governance and administrative functions. Early findings highlighted staffing shortages, duplication and variation across agencies, differing levels of risk, and the challenge of coordinating climate priorities across agencies with other core missions. Members asked about program outcomes, administrative costs, whether some programs should have exit strategies, and how to strengthen the EV Coordinating Council. Finally, WSDOT provided an implementation update on its new public-private partnership authority under SB 5801, saying work is underway to prepare governance, legal, policy, and organizational structures ahead of the January 1, 2027 effective date.

Transcript Highlights:

• And in this case, I plaintiff prevails.
• in that case. in that case. >> Thank<00:33:19.919> you. >> Thank you.
• <00:52:47.440> from because that's who I hear from because that's who I hear from primarily
• same or is this kind of isolated cases? same or is this kind of isolated cases?
• I appreciate you hearing<01:05:29.200> hearing<01:05:29.599> my<01:05:29.760> bill.

Bills: SF0035, SF0090, SF0072

Keywords: education, cell phones, smart devices, school policy, student conduct, school property, rental fees, youth activities, education policy, Wyoming legislature, teacher licensure, teacher mobility, interstate compact, education compact, licensure reciprocity, reciprocal certification, teacher certification, professional teaching standards board, out-of-state teachers, military spouse

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:03:54.640> this grieving today, who hearing this grieving today, who hearing this testimony
• And if that is the case, why would you want to hide it? Thank you.
• And if that is the case, why would you want to hide it? Thank you.
• , if that is the case, if that is the case, why<00:09:28.720> would<00:09:28.880> you
• We've had a that we've been hearing.

Keywords: HB 312 continued 00:00 Motions, Petitions, and Communications 25:16 Introduction of New Bills and Resolutions 27:27 Recess for ConC and Rules Meeting 28:33 ConC/Rules Report 33:45 Adjournment 35:21, 958, all

Summary: The House took up House Bill 312, which would expand concealed carry rights to 18- to 20-year-olds. Debate focused heavily on gun violence, public safety, constitutional rights, and whether the bill would make schools, parks, and other public places less safe. Opponents argued that young people are not ready for the responsibility, cited recent shootings and gun deaths in their districts, and said families had not asked for this bill. Supporters said 18- to 20-year-olds already may possess firearms, that concealed carry is safer than open carry for law-abiding adults, and that the bill includes training and background-check provisions. Several members also discussed differences between rural and urban gun culture and whether crime trends were related to constitutional carry laws. During floor discussion, members exchanged questions about crime rates since constitutional carry was enacted, with a sponsor responding that crime had decreased in the Commonwealth. Other members raised concerns about suicide, mental health, and the impact on students and women, while supporters emphasized self-defense and constitutional rights. After debate, the House voted on HB 312 and passed it 73-17. The bill was then clinched. After HB 312, the House handled routine business. Members moved House Resolutions 30, 33, and 7 from committee to the floor, and several committee schedule announcements were made, including possible changes due to weather. The Committee on Committees reported referrals for a number of bills to standing committees, and the Rules Committee posted House Bills 134 and 306 for the regular orders on Monday, January 26, 2026. The House then adjourned until 4:00 p.m. Monday, January 26, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• Had 3 hearings last, uh, last year and 2 here and 11 back in Tyler.
• Um, but like with every other criminal case, I realize this criminal case is unique and it's not like
• Now typically it's what I hear.
• You don't hear that very often. You hear it, it's just not very often.
• They're not going to prosecute local clock switch cases.

Transcript Highlights:

• Secondly, I'd love to hear from you.
• So, we can hear you. So, we can hear you. I don't see your camera on, but that's fine. Please, Mr.
• , partner with other facilities, regionalize in some cases, maximize revenue in other cases, various
• And in some cases, in the case of OB And in some cases, in the case of OB services, for example, or trauma
• Uh, you don't hear that from an agency...

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Only in those cases, in which case it's more playing a media type of role.
• Um only in those cases, in equally.
• Um only in those cases, in which<00:07:31.320> case<00:07:31.560> it's<00:07:31.720>
• , but in that Administrative Hearings, but in that case<00:08:42.039> the<00:08:42.200> ad<
• <00:30:58.640> from They apparently have been hearing from They apparently have been hearing

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And I think we can all agree that that is the case.
• I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not convinced that that's the case.
• Senator, we're happy to hear from you and happy to see you.
• Robert, we can't hear you. Robert, we can't hear you. Robert Ford. Can you hear me now?
• Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Hi. My name is Matt McGraw.

Bills: HB99, HJR5, HM39, HB206, HB213, SB41, SB153, SB165, SB261, SB264

Keywords: medical malpractice, malpractice reform, patient's compensation fund, PCF, health care liability, tort reform, damage caps, punitive damages, hospital liability, physician liability, nurse practitioner, certified nurse-midwife, outpatient facility, ambulatory surgical center, urgent care, free-standing emergency room, insurance surcharge, superintendent of insurance, New Mexico hospitals, medical review process

Transcript Highlights:

• As an example, as we were hearing from Representative Kowalski, we were hearing about the different facts
• Every single day, every hearing...
• On a regular basis, I hear from people where they've got contracted case management, and their case managers
• This is contracted case management.
• contracted case managers...

Transcript Highlights:

• And in 80% of the cases, death.
• about here, like shelters in both cases.
• It's in some cases yes, in some cases not so much, or partially.
• So we're anxious to hear.
• Guzmano, we can't hear you. I don't know if you can hear us. Hopefully, we're getting back.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now I hear you, and I think when you...
• not reconcile in three days or... or five days, or a week, or a year, whatever that is, but specific case-by-case
• When I was coming in, I was glad to hear that discussion.
• I mean, that has a definition—case law.
• So, I want you to hear me and hear me clearly about what may be going on.

Bills: SB27, SB226, SB326, SB570, SB605, SB870, SB991, SB1871, SB1872, SB1873, SB1874, SB1924, SB1925

Keywords: residency, public schools, child safety placement, enrollment, education code, antisemitism, student conduct, education, disciplinary actions, Texas Education Code, truancy, attendance policy, chronic absenteeism, school attendance, student absence notifications, parent notification, home visit, attendance officer, truancy court, school district

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm excited to hear them.
• And then I'll just run into the case studies.
• Uh, I have many case studies and examples.
• So this is a real-world case study of seeing that.
• So did I hear you correctly?

Summary: The committee held a study on the potential effects of living wage or minimum wage laws in Oklahoma, with the chair emphasizing that the discussion was not intended to advocate for or against State Question 832. The first panel focused on economic and workforce impacts. An Oklahoma Department of Commerce representative argued that living wage calculations vary by region and household type, that Oklahoma’s average wages are already near or above many living-wage estimates, and that higher mandated wages could lead employers to cut hours, reduce hiring, automate, or avoid expansion, especially in rural areas where childcare, healthcare, broadband, and infrastructure constraints also affect labor participation. Committee members asked about wage distributions, rural cost differences, training pathways, and whether higher wages might draw workers or businesses out of state; the witness said many low-wage workers move up over time and that Oklahoma has seen net in-migration. A State Chamber Research Foundation witness then testified that a $15 statewide wage floor would raise payroll costs substantially, especially for small rural employers, and cited examples from California and Seattle to argue that higher wages can reduce hours, jobs, and benefits while increasing consumer prices. She suggested alternatives such as expanding the state earned income tax credit and promoting upskilling through existing education and training programs. A Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry representative described Missouri’s recent voter-approved minimum wage increase to $13.75, rising to $15, along with paid sick leave provisions. She said the chamber opposed the measure because it would raise business costs, hurt rural communities and youth employment, and force some employers to cut hours, reduce hiring, or close. She cited examples from Missouri businesses facing significant added costs and warned that a future ballot initiative could create a patchwork of local minimum wages. In response to questions, she said Missouri’s law did not distinguish by age or industry, that businesses had raised concerns about union contracts and compliance, and that the chamber viewed the measure as harmful to competitiveness. Peter Hansen of NFIB presented the final major testimony, summarizing an NFIB study projecting that a higher Oklahoma minimum wage would produce some short-term GDP gains but longer-term losses, with GDP turning negative by the early 2030s and job losses growing over time. He said businesses respond to higher wage mandates by raising prices, trimming jobs, converting full-time positions to part-time, reducing benefits, and shifting investment toward automation or other capital. He argued that the burden falls most heavily on vulnerable workers such as young or marginal employees, who are less likely to be hired when labor costs rise. In questioning, he acknowledged that higher wages can improve pay for some workers and may have some short-term positive effects, but maintained that the long-term employment and investment effects are negative. No votes or formal actions were taken in the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, we had a public hearing.
• We had a public hearing.
• [clears throat] Uh, do I hear a motion? [clears throat] Uh, do I hear a motion?
• Next bill up is a public hearing.
• So HB344 simply fixes an case may be.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• case now is a negligence case.
• As I said last year, let me give you some examples of some cases.
• Those things are going to be raised in that case. And we all know that.
• We are looking at how long it takes a case to settle.
• We are looking at how long it takes a case to settle.

Summary: The Civil Justice and Claims Subcommittee considered HB 145, by Rep. McFarland, which would raise Florida’s sovereign immunity caps from $200,000 per person and $300,000 per incident to $500,000 and $1 million, with a future inflation-based increase, extend the time to bring claims, and allow local governments to settle claims above the cap without a claims bill. McFarland argued the bill modernizes an outdated system and helps injured people obtain compensation more fairly and efficiently, while preserving sovereign immunity. Several members spoke in support during debate, saying the bill better balances government accountability and victims’ rights and that current caps have not kept pace with inflation and damages. Public testimony was largely in opposition. Local governments, counties, cities, insurance groups, and school-related organizations warned the bill would significantly increase liability exposure, insurance premiums, and taxpayer costs, especially for small and rural governments and school districts. Opponents also objected to the provision allowing settlements above the cap without legislative action, saying it would weaken the cap and increase litigation and costs. Supporters countered that injured people often wait years for claims bills and that governments should be able to resolve meritorious claims directly. After debate, the committee voted 16-1 to report HB 145 favorably, with Rep. Lopez voting no. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Speaker, Representative McClure, I'm sorry I did not hear that.
• In many cases, these kids are trying to become U.S. citizens.
• The what-ifs and the worst-case It's heartbreaking, the what-ifs, and the worst-case scenarios are scary
• court cases here just in Florida.
• court cases here just in Florida.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, pledge, quorum call, approval of the journal, and adoption of the Rules and Ethics Committee’s special order report for the day. The chamber then took up House Bill 1B, the immigration bill, and members were told they would have one opportunity to question the sponsor on both the House version and the anticipated Senate changes. Representative McClure described the bill as a major immigration-enforcement package creating a chief immigration officer housed in the Department of Agriculture, an Office of State Immigration Enforcement, a local law enforcement grant program, a state immigration council, and new penalties and enforcement tools. He also outlined anticipated Senate language, including stronger 287(g) participation requirements, enhanced penalties for unauthorized aliens, a mandatory death penalty provision for certain capital offenses, and additional coordination with federal agencies. The bill drew extensive questioning from Democrats about due process, constitutional issues, school and workplace impacts, and the treatment of people whose immigration status changes over time. Members asked about birthright citizenship, TPS, asylum seekers, pretrial detention standards, the lawful basis for detaining someone based on suspected status, and whether teachers, social workers, school resource officers, and even children could be required to cooperate with immigration enforcement. McClure and Representative Garrison repeatedly said the bill would require cooperation with federal authorities, that status determinations would be handled under existing court procedures, and that the Senate death-penalty language was intended to fit within Hurst by requiring a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was an unauthorized alien. They also said the bill did not provide DMV funding, did not address teacher shortages, and included appropriations such as $25 million for the local law enforcement participation incentive program and broader funding for enforcement and training. Several amendments were considered. Representative Chambliss offered an amendment to protect schools, churches, and places of worship from enforcement activity; supporters argued it would preserve trust in sacred and educational spaces, but the amendment failed. Representative Escamani offered an amendment to preserve in-state tuition for Dreamers; supporters emphasized the educational and economic contributions of Dreamers and the hardship of higher tuition, but that amendment also failed. The debate ended with no bill vote in the excerpt, but the House completed the amendment votes and continued consideration of the immigration measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• I used to on a serious serious case.
• That case was ultimately dismissed.
• Any case.
• This will be an example of getting one low if you can get another because in this case the case we're
• I want to hear it. I don't see pictures. I don't hear testimony.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• of holding mult um many public hearings of holding mult um many public hearings to<00:07:19.440>
• cases were settled this fall.
• pending cases were settled this fall. pending cases were settled this fall.
• >> I can hear talking. >> I can hear talking.
• >> I can't hear you. >> I can't hear you.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Sariñana, I think that will be the case in this. case in this.
• We're going to get two hearings.
• Did we overfund them in the 2025 budget hearings?
• What we're hearing and what we're experiencing, and what I'm hearing from members in other parts of the
• Madam Chair and Chairman, I hear your answer.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm a horsewoman, in case you didn't catch that.
• , and that the family requires ongoing case management services.
• managers, the total number and percentage of case managers handling 25 or more cases, the turnover rates
• Can you hear me now? Great. Yes.
• Just a quick follow-up on the high-acuity cases.

Summary: The Human Services Subcommittee held its first meeting of the term and heard introductory remarks from the chair, vice chair, ranking member, and members, who broadly described their interest in child welfare, mental health, aging services, homelessness, and agency accountability. The chair then outlined the subcommittee’s jurisdiction, including child welfare, mental health and substance abuse safety net services, domestic violence, developmental disabilities, elder services, and child support, and introduced the Department of Children and Families (DCF) as the first agency panel for the term. DCF presented an implementation update on HB 7089, a 2024 law aimed at increasing accountability and transparency for community-based care (CBC) lead agencies that deliver most child welfare services under contract. The department said the bill was prompted by forensic examinations that found problems such as noncompetitive procurement, related-party transactions, excessive executive compensation, and weak financial oversight. DCF described new contract requirements and monitoring tools covering board governance and annual training, conflict-of-interest disclosures, financial penalties for noncompliance, fidelity bond requirements, limits on direct service provision by lead agencies, related-party procurement rules, procurement thresholds, real-property approvals, compensation caps, expanded public reporting, and a new Future of Child Protection and Funding Work Group. DCF reported that some lead agencies had completed required board training, others were still on schedule, and two agencies exceeding the direct-service threshold had been referred to the Auditor General. Members asked DCF about the reasons for the bill, the impact on children, the work group’s regional representation, aging-out youth, the Embrace Families transition, board training requirements, and whether enforcement actions had been taken. DCF said the bill was intended to protect funds for children and families and improve oversight, and clarified that the Central Florida lead agency contract was awarded through competitive procurement rather than an absorption. DCF also said the board training was designed to be meaningful but not overly burdensome, with timing left partly to lead agencies as they implement the new requirements. The committee then heard from two CBC leaders, who generally supported the accountability goals of HB 7089 and said their agencies had already addressed most of the new governance and disclosure requirements. They reported that board training had been completed or was being scheduled, but both agencies said the fidelity bond requirement has been difficult or impossible to obtain in the market as written, though they were able to secure the separate performance bond. The CBC witnesses also warned that recruiting providers is increasingly difficult, especially for higher-acuity children and group-home placements, due to limited provider supply, regulatory burden, insurance costs, and rising risk. They said these pressures are contributing to budget deficits in some areas and urged lawmakers to consider the funding model, insurance and indemnification issues, and the risk of overregulation reducing provider participation.

Transcript Highlights:

• In today's hearing, we'll hear from a union member representing furloughed federal workers in Minnesota
• hear about the impacts on WIC and SNAP. hear about the impacts on WIC and SNAP.
• to you um after the hearing. to you um after the hearing.
• He said that is not the case.
• your hearing now. your hearing now.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all