Transcript Highlights:

• We want to win those business expansion projects, but this is certainly a deterrent.
• Hearing that it's going to increase our cost of doing business and therefore it's going to be a deterrent

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:

• This bill unfortunately replaced trust with suspicion, access with red tape, and democracy with deterrence
• This bill unfortunately replaced trust with suspicion, access with red tape, and democracy with deterrence

Summary: The Senate opened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and a series of member introductions recognizing interns, pages, volunteers, and the retirement of Pastor Gary Austin from the sergeant’s office. Leadership also announced that budget talks with the House were continuing and that senators would not need to plan on being in next week, suggesting progress toward a budget framework. After routine floor business, the chamber took up a major third-reading measure on citizen initiatives and several education bills, followed later by returning messages from the House on health and school-safety measures. The most extensive debate centered on the citizen initiative bill, which sponsors said was intended to protect the constitutional amendment process from fraud and abuse based on election-crime investigations and a large state report on petition fraud. Supporters argued the bill would add reasonable guardrails, prevent misuse of public funds, and preserve integrity while still allowing grassroots participation. Opponents from both parties argued it would make citizen-led amendments much harder by adding costs, deadlines, criminal penalties, and administrative burdens that would chill participation and favor wealthy or corporate interests. After lengthy debate, the Senate voted 28-10 to pass the bill. The chamber then passed several education measures with little or no opposition, including bills tied to Bright Futures, dual enrollment, Florida ABLE, teacher preparation, and other education policy updates, all by 38-0. Later, the Senate concurred in House amendments on a stem cell therapy bill, an EKG requirement for student athletes, and a cardiac emergency bill, each passing 37-0. The House also sent back a school safety bill with amendments affecting child care facility partnerships with law enforcement, temporary door locks during active assailant incidents, supervision windows, and funding for panic alarm systems; the transcript ends as that bill is being explained.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill unfortunately replaced trust with suspicion, access with red tape, and democracy with deterrence
• This bill unfortunately replaced trust with suspicion, access with red tape, and democracy with deterrence

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, opening prayer, Pledge of Allegiance, and a series of introductions recognizing interns, pages, and retiring Senate staff, including Pastor Gary Austin. Leaders also noted ongoing budget talks with the House and said senators would not need to plan on being in Tallahassee the following week. The chamber then moved to third reading and returned messages from the House later in the day. The main floor debate centered on Committee Substitute for House Bill 12.5, the citizen initiative/constitutional amendment bill. Sponsors said the measure was intended to address fraud in the petition process, citing investigations, arrests, pleas, and open cases involving paid circulators and invalid petitions. Opponents argued the bill would make citizen-led amendments far more difficult, expensive, and risky, warning it would chill grassroots participation, burden supervisors of elections, and effectively favor wealthy or corporate-backed efforts. Supporters responded that the bill preserved grassroots petitioning, placed reasonable guardrails on paid circulators and sponsors, and included a provision barring public funds from being used to advocate for or against ballot initiatives. The bill passed 28-10. The Senate also passed several education measures unanimously, including bills tied to Bright Futures, dual enrollment, educator preparation, and broader education policy. Later, the chamber concurred in House amendments on several bills: stem cell therapy legislation clarifying permitted therapies and penalties for improper use of fetal or embryonic tissue; an EKG requirement bill for student athletes with exemptions and partnership options for districts; and a cardiac emergency response bill that renamed the school emergency plan and removed a bill title honoring Rafe McCrone. These measures passed by wide margins, generally 37-0 or 38-0.

Transcript Highlights:

• Ultimately, we want the practice to stop, and we hope it's a deterrent enough that it doesn't happen
• prosecutors can recover through their general enforcement powers are relatively small, limiting the deterrent

Summary: The Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee met with a new membership roster and adopted its committee rules after quorum was established. The hearing then began with AB 412, the AI Copyright Transparency Act, which would require generative AI developers to provide copyright holders notice when registered copyrighted works are used in training data. The author and supporters, including SAG-AFTRA, the Transparency Coalition, voice actors, writers, labor groups, and other creators, argued the bill would give artists a practical way to learn whether their works were used and to vindicate their rights. Opponents, including EFF, CalChamber, RIAA, CCIA, Chamber of Progress, Bay Area Council, BSA, and TechNet, said the proposal was technically unworkable, could burden startups, conflict with existing law and pending litigation, and raise federal preemption concerns. Members discussed the bill’s amendments, including a fingerprinting approach and narrowing the bill to model developers, and the committee voted 8-2 to pass AB 412 as amended to the Judiciary Committee. The committee then heard AB 446, which would prohibit “surveillance pricing,” or the use of personal data to charge different prices for the same product or service. The author and supporters, including Consumer Watchdog, UFCW, labor organizations, and consumer/privacy groups, described examples of differential pricing tied to device type, location, shopping behavior, and digital price tags, and argued the bill would protect consumers from discriminatory and predatory pricing. Business and industry opponents, including CalChamber, grocers, retailers, travel, broadband, and other associations, said the bill could conflict with the CCPA, interfere with loyalty and rewards programs, and create confusion about personalized discounts and dynamic pricing. The discussion focused on how the bill would treat loyalty programs, whether existing privacy law already covers the issue, and whether the proposal would unintentionally affect legitimate discounts and promotions.

Transcript Highlights:

• , we are going to enhance those penalties because we are trying to create the strongest possible deterrent
• Do you really think that is a deterrent?

Bills: SJR36, SR8, SR14, SR15, SR17, HCR54

Keywords: accountants, Texas Society of Certified Public Accountants, advocacy, legislation, business issues, memorial, law enforcement, sacrifice, tribute, community support, service, community, Holocaust, remembrance, antisemitism, human rights, education, Holocaust Remembrance Day, memorialization, sexual assault

Transcript Highlights:

• applicant pools are small, liability burden and turnover are high, and current MTRS guidelines are a deterrent

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Service held a hearing on a wide range of credible service and retirement-related bills, with testimony largely focused on allowing public employees to buy back prior service time or receive more appropriate retirement classifications. Bills discussed included retirement buyback for Joint Base Cape Cod firefighters (H. 4317), clarification of call firefighter buyback rights (H. 2883/S. 1915), veterans’ buyback (H. 2957), a Bridgewater State University police death-benefit/heart-law issue (filed by Rep. Gallagher), unpaid parental leave buyback for municipal employees (H. 2946), school nurse creditable service (H. 2887/S. 1787), former private/parochial school teacher buyback (S. 1900/H. 2873), Massport police retirement classification (S. 1888), contract employee buyback (H. 2795), Retirement Plus late entry (H. 2792), CVTE/teacher-related buyback issues (H. 2762), Peace Corps/AmeriCorps creditable service (H. 2927), and institutional school teacher retirement fairness (H. 2757). Several speakers also referenced related bills for teachers and nurses that had been heard previously or were filed in parallel in the other branch. Testimony was overwhelmingly in support of the bills. Speakers argued that the measures would correct inequities, recognize prior public service, and help recruit and retain workers in hard-to-fill public jobs. Firefighters described the unique federal-to-state transition at Joint Base Cape Cod and said some members were left out of earlier buyback opportunities. Veterans, teachers, school nurses, correctional educators, and Massport police all described service requirements, administrative gaps, or outdated statutory language that they said unfairly limited retirement credit or placed them in the wrong retirement group. Several witnesses emphasized that the proposals were fiscally responsible because employees would pay the cost of the buybacks, and some noted that similar bills had been filed repeatedly in prior sessions. Committee members asked a few clarifying questions, mostly about why certain employees had been excluded under current law or how the retirement provisions would work. No opposition testimony was presented. The hearing concluded after all scheduled witnesses testified, with the chairs thanking participants for their service and the committee voting to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• costs, although DOJ already provides guidance to county registrars, and the goal of the bill is deterrence

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on May 13, 2026, with a large agenda of 196 bills. After establishing quorum, the committee first approved two consent calendars covering numerous bills, then heard a series of author presentations and public testimony. Most measures discussed were housing, public safety, health care, and local government bills, with many authors and sponsors emphasizing that the proposals had minor, absorbable, or no state costs. Among the bills heard were AB 2641 on a sales tax exemption for pawnbroker redemptions; AB 2525 to create a narrow Surplus Lands Act exemption for Mission Bay Park in San Diego; AB 1732 and AB 2433 on student housing and the density bonus law; AB 2055 updating boating safety and enforcement laws; AB 1579 expanding children’s crisis residential options; AB 2139 for an Inland Empire sports-related Surplus Lands Act exemption; AB 2041 on EMS reporting compliance; AB 1973 expanding advanced practice clinicians’ authority for reproductive care; AB 1929 requiring health plan investment disclosures; AB 2700 on utility rates and wildfire victim compensation; AB 1809 removing the sunset on school job order contracting; SB 73 strengthening election security; AB 2418 streamlining commercial building permits; AB 1970 limiting step therapy for serious mental illness and substance use treatment; AB 2361 on peer-to-peer vehicle-sharing liability; AB 1976 streamlining bike and pedestrian project approvals; AB 2110 authorizing local tax increment financing for workforce housing; and AB 2146 easing documentation for supportive housing placements. Testimony was largely in support, often from sponsoring organizations, local governments, housing advocates, health groups, law enforcement, and wildfire survivors. AB 2700 drew especially extensive public support from Camp Fire and Tubbs Fire survivors and local officials, who urged stronger compensation for wildfire victims and relief from utility costs. AB 2034 and AB 1790 were mentioned during public comment as bills with opposition from industry groups, while AB 1903 and SB 417 also drew comment. Several bills were amended or noted as being subject to future amendments, including AB 1732, AB 2041, and AB 2418. The committee took action on the bills as they were heard, generally voting them out on due pass motions, many by roll call and several with members not voting on particular measures. The suspense calendar was then read and deemed approved, and the hearing concluded after public comment on bills not heard that day.

Transcript Highlights:

• What is the policy rationale for using residency as a deterrent?

Summary: The committee first took up PCS for HB 1503, which would require general education courses that use technology to provide students opportunities to build digital literacy, including instruction on applications of artificial intelligence and related topics such as software engineering, computer networks, database systems, and cybersecurity as applicable to the course. It would also require high school computer science courses offered by school districts to include instruction on AI. There was no public testimony or debate, and the bill was reported favorably on a unanimous roll call vote. The committee then considered PCS for HB 1279, an education bill that the sponsor said was intended to improve consistency, oversight, and transparency while putting Florida students first. The bill drew extensive questioning and opposition over provisions affecting university admissions and funding, including a 95% Florida-resident first-time-in-college enrollment target tied to preeminent funding, a cap on nonresident students from any one country, standardized GPA weighting, limits on institution-wide graduation requirements, and changes related to accreditation references and other education programs. The sponsor argued these changes would open more seats for Florida students, preserve academic rigor, and align statutes with existing regulations and court action, while opponents said the bill would harm university competitiveness, research, revenue, faculty recruitment, and access for international and nontraditional students. Public testimony on HB 1279 was largely opposed. Speakers included a student advocate, a dental hygiene representative concerned about dual regulation of expanded-function dental programs, and faculty representatives from FSU and FAMU who warned the bill would politicize admissions and curriculum, reduce competitiveness, and create negative fiscal impacts. During debate, supporters emphasized taxpayer investment in Florida students and the need to prioritize in-state applicants, while opponents argued the bill would weaken the state university system and undermine its national standing. The committee reported PCS for HB 1279 favorably by a 12-5 vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• The certainty of getting caught is a greater deterrent to crime than the potential length of a sentence

Bills: SB 614, SB 872, SB 1199, SB 1212, SB 1278, SB 1573, SB 1588, SB 1602, SB 1660, SB 1704, SB 1723, SB 1833, SB 1858, SB 1946, SB 2009, SB 2146, SB 2177, SB 2373, SB 2460, SB 2785

Keywords: forensic science, capital writs, criminal justice, case review, Texas Forensic Science Commission, SB 872, burglary of a vehicle, vehicle burglary, theft of a firearm, stolen gun, firearm theft, Penal Code Section 30.04, third-degree felony, Class A misdemeanor, criminal penalty enhancement, gun theft, vehicle break-in, property crime, sentencing enhancement, Texas criminal law

Transcript Highlights:

• Is that a deterrent? Is $250, $500 in return?

Bills: SB2156

Keywords: campaign finance, disclosure, political contributions, election transparency, North Dakota Century Code, 908, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to review HB 2156, which reorganizes North Dakota campaign finance disclosure law by repealing Chapter 16.1 and moving the provisions into a new Chapter 16.2 with mostly technical cross-reference updates. Legislative Council and the Secretary of State’s office walked through the bill section by section, explaining that most language is carried over from current law, with some cleanup to definitions, reporting requirements, public access rules, and filing procedures. The committee discussed how the new chapter would apply to candidates, candidate committees, political committees, political parties, ballot measure groups, and conduits. Several substantive issues were raised and adjusted during the discussion. Members questioned the open-records language for expenditures and contributions over $250, the use of “deposit” versus “receipt” as the reporting trigger, and whether the 48-hour supplemental reporting deadline should be changed to three calendar days; the group ultimately favored keeping 48 hours and using “deposit” consistently. They also clarified reporting dates, including changing one special-election deadline from 40 days to 39 days, and confirmed that balances of campaign funds would be reported but not made publicly available. The Secretary of State’s office also explained that the bill would make late fees public and that the chapter-wide penalty for willful violations remains a Class A misdemeanor. The main policy change debated at length was the late-filing fee schedule. Members expressed concern that the existing penalties were too low to deter intentional non-filers, and after discussion the committee agreed to increase the final late fee from $100 to $500 while keeping the new public posting of delinquent filers. The committee also reviewed an inflation-adjustment provision for reporting thresholds and the “ultimate true source of funds” language, which was described as existing law being carried into the new chapter. The meeting ended with the understanding that additional drafting changes would be made and that the bill would be ready for further committee action later in the week.

Transcript Highlights:

• Force on what you need to support a nuclear bomber force so that it remains effective and a credible deterrent

Keywords: Transcom, logistics, military readiness, air refueling, KC-135, KC-46, strategic infrastructure, geopolitical threats, Alaska

Summary: During this meeting, the committee hosted an extensive discussion on the operations and logistical challenges facing the U.S. Transportation Command (Transcom). General Reid provided testimony on key areas including the importance of maintaining robust logistical capabilities in contested environments, particularly in relation to geopolitical threats posed by adversarial nations. Various members emphasized the necessity for modernization of the air refueling fleet, addressing issues such as the readiness of the KC-135 and the procurement of the next-generation KC-46 aircraft, which has experienced delays and technical challenges. The dialogue further extended to the strategic importance of U.S. ports and transportation infrastructure, especially in regions like Alaska which play a crucial role in military logistics and power projection.

Transcript Highlights:

• That’s not a big enough deterrent effect.
• Is there any deterrent in the proposed bill that would prevent other lawyers, trial lawyers, from being
• We feel like it will provide a deterrent effect to ensure that those algorithms aren’t sort of intentionally

Summary: The committee heard several bills, with most drawing support after amendments or ongoing stakeholder negotiations. SB 29, by Senator Laird, would extend a sunset on the law allowing pain-and-suffering claims to survive a plaintiff’s death; supporters, including a family member describing a medical negligence case, labor groups, consumer advocates, and disability and elder organizations, argued it prevents defendants from running out the clock, while hospitals, medical groups, and business organizations warned of higher costs and added liability. After extensive debate about data collection, settlement reporting, and the impact on health care access, the bill passed to Appropriations on a divided vote. SB 294, by Senator Reyes and presented by Senator Laird, would require employers to notify a worker’s emergency contact if the worker is arrested or detained and would create a template to inform employees of state and federal labor rights. Labor and worker advocates said the bill would help workers understand and enforce their rights amid weakened federal enforcement; there was no opposition on file, and the bill passed unanimously to Appropriations. SB 697 would modernize water-rights adjudication by allowing the State Water Board to use technology instead of requiring in-person field investigations; with no opposition, it also passed unanimously. The committee also advanced SB 37 on attorney advertising, SB 645 on peremptory challenges in civil cases, SB 303 on bias-mitigation trainings in public workplaces, and SB 464 on expanding pay-data reporting for specified state workers. SB 37 drew support from consumer and legal groups but concerns from Walker Advertising about joint advertising; members said negotiations were ongoing, and the bill passed. SB 645 would extend anti-bias jury-selection rules to certain civil rights cases; criminal-defense and defense groups said they were close to agreement, and the bill passed. SB 303 and SB 464 were both amended to narrow scope and moved forward after several opponents shifted to neutral or removed opposition. The committee also approved a consent calendar of additional bills, all sent to Appropriations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, a Class D felony is necessary because a fine of any size would not be a deterrent for the federal
• size would<00:12:14.399> not<00:12:14.560> be<00:12:14.639> a<00:12:14.880> deterrent
• c><00:12:15.279> for<00:12:15.519> the<00:12:15.760> federal would not be a deterrent
• for the federal would not be a deterrent for the federal government<00:12:16.240> or<00:12:16.399

Bills: HB60

Keywords: geoengineering, weather modification, environmental safety, atmospheric pollutants, criminal pollution, Meeting Start: 00:00:02 Roll Call: 00:00:08 26 RS HB 60 - AN ACT relating to geoengineering: 00:01:35 Department of Corrections Update: 00:32:59 Kentucky Parole Board Update: 01:19:21, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• able to hire police liaison officers for our two campuses, whose presence would serve as both a deterrent
• serve<00:32:24.640> as<00:32:24.960> both<00:32:25.360> a<00:32:25.600> deterrent
• presence would serve as both a deterrent presence would serve as both a deterrent to<00:32:26.559

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• believe that current penalty amounts are not high enough in some major cases to act as an effective deterrent
• some major cases to act as an enough in some major cases to act as an effective<00:15:34.960> deterrent
• <00:15:36.080> It<00:15:36.200> is effective deterrent.
• It is effective deterrent.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a real deterrent for people to go if they don't have any way or they're fearful they can't pay it
• <01:14:00.400> It's<01:14:00.640> a<01:14:00.880> real<01:14:01.199> deterrent
• It's a real deterrent health as well.
• It's a real deterrent for<01:14:02.080> people<01:14:02.320> to<01:14:02.560> go

Keywords: 00:00:00 - Call to Order/Roll Call 00:02:20 - Discussion of 26RS HB 689 00:13:13 - Discussion of 26RS SB 201 00:27:45 - Discussion of 26RS HB 583 00:46:37 - Discussion of 26RS HB 488 00:48:13 - Discussion of 26RS HB 2 01:14:34 - Discussion of Kentucky State Plan Amendment (SPA) 26:0001: School-based Medicaid Services Program 01:18:24 - Public Comment, 958, all

Summary: The Medicaid Oversight Board met on March 9 with a quorum present and no minutes to approve. The chair reordered the agenda to hear House Bill 689 first. Representative Amy Neighbors presented HB 689, which would authorize Kentucky to seek CMS approval for a Medicaid state-directed payment program for physician and non-physician professional services delivered through qualifying hospital-affiliated groups, beginning January 1, 2026, with retroactive payments for that year. She said the bill is intended to improve access to care in rural and underserved areas, support workforce retention, and generate about $29 million annually in federal Medicaid funds without using general fund dollars. Representatives from Owensboro Health and St. Elizabeth Healthcare testified in support, describing staffing and subsidy pressures, lower Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement, and the importance of the program for maintaining access and quality in rural and safety-net settings. Committee members noted the bill had already passed the House Health Services Committee unanimously and discussed broader concerns about Kentucky’s low reimbursement rates and the need to consider other systems not covered by the proposal. The board then heard Senate Bill 2011 from Senator Donald Douglas and Cody Hunt of the Kentucky Medical Association. The bill would address a Medicaid coding issue by ensuring that coverage limits do not reduce payment to fewer than two evaluation and management service units per provider, per patient, per day. Douglas argued the current one-visit, one-issue limitation forces multiple visits, increases no-shows, and prevents providers from treating the whole patient. Hunt explained that the bill is meant to correct a longstanding regulation that limited E&M services to one per physician per recipient per date of service, which can prevent providers from coding additional medically necessary work during the same visit. He said DMS has already filed a regulatory amendment to fix the problem, but a statutory change is still needed to prevent the issue from returning. He also said the bill is not intended to change reimbursement policy, only coding rules, and that MCO payment practices vary. Members generally supported the concept. Senator Berg asked about fiscal impact and private-payer billing; Hunt said there should be no fiscal impact because the bill does not change payment policy, only coding. Representative Moore said the proposal could reduce costs and improve convenience by avoiding extra visits. Chairman Meredith said the bill illustrated problems with fee-for-service care and supported moving toward a more holistic delivery model. Dr. Schuster raised a drafting concern about the bill summary language, and Hunt responded that the regulatory amendment should address the issue generally for providers. No votes were taken on either bill during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• But what we can do and what we should be doing is everything that we can possibly do to put deterrence
• everything that we can possibly do to everything that we can possibly do to put<01:38:12.880> deterrence
• c> roadblocks<01:38:14.080> or<01:38:14.320> or<01:38:14.719> make put deterrence
• or roadblocks or or make put deterrence or roadblocks or or make it<01:38:15.040> harder<01:38

Bills: HF3418, HF3739, HF3791, HF3356, HF3695, HF3430

Keywords: pedestrian safety, traffic safety, roadway improvements, nonmotorized transportation, crosswalks, sidewalks, bike lanes, complete streets, Vision Zero, Toward Zero Deaths, MnDOT, Department of Transportation, Department of Public Safety, local road authority, county roads, city streets, tribal transportation, capital improvements, safety design solutions, grant program

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from February 25, 2026, and the chair noted the absence of Representative Katie Jones due to the birth of her baby. The chair also acknowledged that the committee would be discussing difficult topics related to the June 14 killing of Mark and Melissa Hortman and Gilbert. The main business began with House File 3418, which Chair Tabke moved for possible inclusion in a future omnibus bill, and the committee adopted the A1 author’s amendment. The bill was described as a pedestrian safety measure prompted by a fatal Moorhead crash involving a young boy; it would create an opt-in program for communities to use pre-made traffic safety templates, with the state covering 80% of project costs to speed implementation of measures like lane narrowing, rumble strips, and bollards. A Moorhead testifier said the city could have acted faster with such funding, and members generally supported the goal while raising concerns about overlap with existing Safe Routes to School and active transportation programs, the bill’s fiscal note, and how communities would be selected. MDOT testified that it already supports similar community demonstration projects and has funded about 30 such projects since 2019. HF 3418 was laid over. The committee then took up House File 3739, a memorial highway bill for Mark and Melissa Hortman. An A1 amendment to shift funding away from trunk highway funds and toward legislative budgets was moved but not adopted after members argued memorial signage should continue to be paid for with private funds, as in prior memorial highway designations. The bill author explained the memorial was intended to honor Melissa Hortman’s service and connection to Highway 610, and members discussed the length of the proposed memorial stretch and whether it should be narrowed to the area she represented. Several members supported the tribute but expressed concern about using public funds and about setting a precedent for future memorial highways. The committee indicated the bill would move on to Ways and Means with other issues still to be worked out.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for including the funding for suicide deterrent barriers on the Washington Avenue Bridge in
• /c> you for including the funding for you for including the funding for suicide<00:18:26.559> deterrent
• <00:18:27.039> barriers<00:18:27.440> on<00:18:27.600> the suicide deterrent
• barriers on the suicide deterrent barriers on the Washington<00:18:28.160> Avenue<00:18:28.559

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The sticker price of college is a major deterrent, especially for first-gen and low-income students.
• :20:39.760> major sticker price of college is a major sticker price of college is a major deterrent
• > especially<00:20:40.960> for<00:20:41.200> firstgen<00:20:41.760> and deterrent
• , especially for firstgen and deterrent, especially for firstgen and lowincome<00:20:42.559> students

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• As I said to you, I wanted to make sure that we had a number that was not serving as a deterrent to new
• had a number that was not serving<01:16:38.800> as<01:16:38.920> a<01:16:39.040> deterrent
• <01:16:39.480> to<01:16:39.679> new<01:16:40.639> players serving as a deterrent
• to new players serving as a deterrent to new players that<01:16:41.239> wanted<01:16:41.600><

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.